sign in sign up
<<
Home , BiFest, Kinsey scale

Bisexualities and Non-monogamies

Meg Barker and Darren Langdridge

‘Most people find it difficult to grasp that whatever they like to do sexually will be thoroughly repulsive to someone else, and that whatever repels them sexually will be the most treasured delight of someone, somewhere…Most people mistake their sexual preferences for a universal system that will or should work for everyone’ (Gayle Rubin, 1984, p.283).

Bisexualities

Many sexuality-related organisations sometimes add ‘’ on the end of ‘ and ’ and sometimes do not. It is one of those slippages that feels very obvious to those of us who define as bisexual but often isn’t noticed by others who feel they are being inclusive.

What is bisexuality

Bisexuality means… Being ‘Sexually attracted to both men and women’ (Oxford English Dictionary) ‘The capacity…to love and sexually desire both same- and other-gendered individuals’ (Firestein, Bisexuality) ‘A changeable sexual and emotional attraction to people of any , where may not be a defining factor’. ‘Gender is not that relevant. It’s like eye colour: I notice it sometimes, and sometimes it can be a bit of a feature but that’s all’ (BiCon attendee)

What is the extent of bisexuality?

This is an extremely difficult question to answer it depends very much on how we define ‘bisexuality’. For example, we might see it as people who identify themselves as bisexual (in which case the estimate might be rather small), or we might define it as all people who have ever had an aesthetic, romantic or sexual attraction to more than one gender (in which case the estimate might be rather large). In terms of the proportion of people who are actively involved in UK bisexual communities, over two hundred people participate in the annual BiCon event and that is just a small proportion of the bisexual- identified people who are involved in local and on-line communities. Fears of may prevent some people from being ‘out’ about their bisexuality.

Stereotypes of Bisexuality

How is bisexuality generally seen in our society? What are the stereotypes of bisexual people? How does the media depict bisexuality? How is someone who comes out as bisexual likely to be treated?

1

Bisexuality

Reasons for these and responses to them.

Biphobia - Double

Bisexuals often suffer from straight communities and biphobia from gay/lesbian communities, to the extent of being banned from some gay clubs and not accepted on pride marches (we’re here, we’re , we’re marching at the rear!) According to Robin Ochs, they are frequently viewed by and as possessing a degree of privilege not available to them and are viewed by many as amoral, hedonistic spreaders of disease and disrupters of families.

Dichotomous thinking

Western society today views sexuality in an either/or way according to two dichotomies: • Male/ • Straight/Gay People are seen as being of one sex and being attracted to one sex.

This has only been the case for just over a century and is rooted in the of the 19th century and the theories of Sigmund Freud who defined as the norm involving genital sex between two people of the ‘opposite’ sex, and as the abnormal alternative.

These dichotomies leaves no room for people (up to 5% of people who are born ambiguously sexed) or people (who feel wrong in the sex they visibly appear to be) or people who are not entirely a masculine male or a feminine female (for example androgynous people, butch identified lesbians, camp men, tomboys, etc.) It also leaves no room for anyone who is not completely straight or completely gay (i.e. bisexuals).

This is why bisexuality is generally seen as ‘a phase’, and people who change from having opposite-sex to same-sex relationships (or vice versa) are seen as having become gay (or straight) rather than as being bisexual.

Acceptance of bisexuality would be good, however, even the word ‘bisexual’ can be seen as problematic since it still implies a ‘two gender’ way of seeing the world. Some bisexuals would rather the whole notion of gender became less important and people were able to love/be sexual with people regardless of gender.

2 Bisexual continuum?

Some bi people find it useful to draw on models that scientists have come up with when thinking and talking about their sexuality. Back in the 1940s, put forward his famous scale of , finding that many people did not fall simply at either end of the spectrum. This scale explains why you might hear bi people calling themselves a ‘Kinsey 2.6 and counting…’

Kinsey's scale 0 exclusively heterosexual 1 predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 2 predominantly heterosexual but more than incidentally homosexual 3 equally heterosexual and homosexual 4 predominantly homosexual but more than incidentally heterosexual 5 predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 6 exclusively homosexual

Fritz Klein’s later model incorporated the idea that people could move up and down this scale rather than being stuck in one place on it forever. However, other people don’t like the idea of a scale at all because it still defines people by which gender they’re attracted to (the same or the opposite) and implies that the more you are attracted to one gender the less you are attracted to the other. Some make an analogy with chocolate: just because you like milk chocolate a lot doesn’t mean you don’t like dark chocolate as much.

Nature or nurture?

Some see bisexuality as something they were born as and/or something based in their biological make-up. Some see it as something they learnt to be as they grew up. Some feel that it would be impossible for them not to be bisexual even if they didn’t want to be. Others see it as a deliberate choice they have made: a label they have adopted or a political decision to be sexual with both men and women or to not choose partners on the basis of their gender.

Behaviour and identity

Finally, some people see being bisexual as something they are whereas others regard it as something they do. A person can have sex with men and women, or be attracted to both, and still prefer not to call themselves bisexual, perhaps because of biphobia or because they are more comfortable with another word (gay, straight, queer, …) For some people being bisexual is the most important aspect of their identity, for others it isn’t as important as other things about them or their sexual preferences. Many people are attracted to men and women without feeling the need to join a bi community. On the other hand, many people feel part of a bi community without defining as bi. 15% of people who came to BiCon 2004 weren’t bi themselves.

Bisexual relationships

Bisexuals are no more likely to be promiscuous or non-monogamous than anybody else. They may have monogamous relationships, non-monogamous relationships, or no relationships. They may have sex within relationships, outside relationships or be celibate.

3 Non-monogamies

Due to the straight/gay dichotomy in most people’s thinking about sexuality, it may well be that the most visible bisexuals are those who are in multiple relationships or who have more than one sexual partner. Those in monogamous relationships are often relatively invisible, being categorised as gay (if with a same sex partner) or straight (if with an opposite one), often even if they themselves define as bisexual.

Stereotypes of Non-

How is non-monogamy generally seen in our society? What are the stereotypes of non- monogamous people? How does the media depict non-monogamy? How is someone who comes out as non-monogamous likely to be treated?

Non-Monogamy

Reasons for these and responses to them.

Models of Non-monogamous Relationships

Non-monogamy in couples after 10 years together: Gay men – 94%, Lesbians – 43%, heterosexual men – 30%, heterosexual women – 22% (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983) Lesbians and gay men more likely to have ‘open’ relationships rather than ‘secret infidelities’ (Nichols, 1990) 56% UK gay men in openly non-monogamous relationships (Davies et al., 1993) More common in gay/lesbian relationships because questioning ‘the rules’ already (Heaphy, Donovan and Weeks, 2004) Heterosexual non-monogamy: swinging and couples internet sites – becoming more common. Most still based on ‘couples’ model.

Polyamory

‘A relationship orientation that assumes that it is possible [and acceptable] to love many people and to maintain multiple intimate and sexual relationships’ (Sexualities, 2003, p.126). A relationship philosophy that recognises ‘people’s capacity to share and multiply their love in honest and consensual ways’ (Anderlini-D’Onofrio, in Eadie, 2004: 165). History: Heinlein’s ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ (1961), proliferation with the internet from the 1990s. Language: , ‘ethical slut’, different set-ups, metamours, wibbles/jealousy, compersion/frubbling. Emphasis on openness, communication and relationship skills.

4 Models of Open Relationships (Labriola)

Primary/secondary Multiple partners – polyfidelity or open (triads, quads, tribes, families) Multiple non-primary partners

Popular Representations

Promiscuity/adultery ! evil/tragedy (Unfaithful, What Lies Beneath, The Ice Storm) Strange / alternative ! more positive representations?

Legal and Clinical Status

Lack of recognition (relationship laws, etc.) HIV prevention strategies of partner reduction DSM categorisation of borderline personality includes promiscuity

Academic Representations

Psychology textbooks (Barker, 2006) - ‘chances are that one day the “right” person will come along, you will fall in love with that person, get married, and perhaps have children’ (Carlson and Buskist, 1997, 518) Partnering/marriage presented as normal/healthy part of development Sexual jealousy presented as inevitable Monogamy (particularly female monogamy) presented as ‘natural’

Queer Sexualities

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movements have traditionally sought to remove the regime of surveillance and harassment. This has occurred whilst simultaneously seeking legal recognition through civil rights claims. But LGBT movements are, like Black and Women’s movements, not unitary phenomena. The 1990s have witnessed the rise of a new element in/beyond the LGBT movement – The Queer Movement.

A number of factors led to the rise of queer politics:

1 Sex radicals resisting the sexual surveillance of first wave feminism – rallied around bisexuality and S/M. 2 Diversification of the LGBT movement and dissatisfaction of people of different ethnicities, races, cultures. 3 Diversification of the LGBT movement and dissatisfaction of people of different ages, (dis)abilities, (trans)gender. 4 Dissatisfaction with the civil rights based arguments for equality and the perceived denial of difference (reassertion of heterosexual dominance).

These developments led to a need for other labels. Some subscribed to the LGBT label whilst others embraced a Queer label to encompass these differences and (crucially) to emphasise the dissident nature of their sexualities. For many queer functions to represent the bitchy, fractious, difficult, uncompromising, unapologetic aspects of the movement – the dissident or transgressive gay citizen. This is in contrast to lesbian and gay which is seen to represent the good gay citizen (see Bell and Binnie, 2000).

5

Queer theory offers a radically different understanding of sex, gender and sexuality. This theoretical approach refuses to accept simple dichotomies (like that between sex/gender) and instead poses a challenge to the dominant heterosexual foundations of sexuality. A conceptualisation of sexuality which sees sexual power embodied in different levels of social life (enforced through boundaries and binary divides).

Queer theory involves the problematisation of sexual and gender categories (and identities more generally). A rejection of civil-rights strategies in favour of carnival, transgression and parody. A willingness to interrogate areas not usually seen as the terrain of sexuality and engage in queer readings of such texts. At its strongest it entails transgression of all conventional categorisations and the breaking of boundaries. More commonly (though much more narrowly) it entails the reclamation of the word queer from the oppressors by the (previously!) oppressed.

What does this mean for therapy?

Deleuze and Guattari (1984) argue that all psychotherapy is inherently political, being marginal, subversive and even potentially revolutionary. Even if a therapist chooses not to affirm the exploration of sexual identities by a client it could be argued that they are making a political choice: a choice for a traditional, arguably conservative, sexual ideology. Advocating a queer position of course recognises a very particular political quality to one’s therapeutic practice, similar to feminist and multicultural systems-cultural therapies (see Fassinger, 2000).

Incorporating a queer hermeneutic (method of interpretation) therefore provides a radical challenge to LGB affirmative (and non-affirmative) practice. There would not be a simple focus on affirming LGB identities but an affirmation of a dynamic notion of identity where sexual subject positions remain contingent and intersect with other psychosocial subject positions. It would be important therefore to encourage a critical questioning of fixed desire in the therapist and client alike with “homo- or bisexual” and “heterosexual” clients. The therapeutic process becomes more clearly political and radical

In this late modern world where identity categories are particularly important there is no doubt that any attempt to move beyond such categories is radical. Whether this is desirable or not is another matter and one which each LGB or Q therapist must decide for themselves both in principle and in the context of work with each and every client.

Further Reading

Bell, D. & Binnie, J. (2000). The Sexual Citizen: Queer Politics and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press. Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble. : Routledge. Fuss, D. (Ed.) (1991) Inside/Out. London: Routledge. Langdridge, D. (in press). Gay affirmative therapy: A theoretical framework and defence. In E. Peel, V. Clarke & J. Drescher (Eds.) British Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Psychologies: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Haworth Press. [Simultaneous publication with J. of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11 (1/2)] Seidman, S. (Ed.) (1996) Queer Theory/Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell.

6 Case Studies – Queering Therapeutic Space

For each of the case studies below, ask yourself:

• Have you had a case like this? How did you deal with it? • What is your formulation or understanding of the key issues/dynamics and the root of the problem? • What themes can you imagine emerging in therapy? • What assumptions might you bring to this? How might the case impact on your understandings of relationships/sexualities? • How would you proceed therapeutically?

1. John and Peter present as a couple having some relationship difficulties. John is 35 and Peter 30, both white and working class. They have been together for five years, having first met through work. John has had a number of previous long-term relationships whilst this is Peter’s first. John thought they should visit a counsellor to discuss some of the problems they had been having in their relationship: Peter agreed. Over the past six months they have found themselves arguing more and more, over a wide variety of issues. Their sex life, in particular, has suffered. Peter thinks this is because of their arguing: John is not so sure. John is feeling rather trapped and wants an open relationship. He still loves Peter but wants to have more freedom and, in particular, wants to have sex with other men. Peter is, however, reluctant being worried that this will be ‘the beginning of the end’

2. Janet is referred by her GP as she is ‘depressed’. She has not previously suffered from depression and does not want to take anti-depressants. She is keen to work through issues relating to her failing career and some ‘other personal issues’. During the course of your work you naturally begin to explore her relationships. Her relationship with her parents is not good and Janet feels ‘this is a major reason for my depression’. It also emerges that she is in a triadic relationship, with a and a . Janet was reluctant to mention this as she was ‘worried what you might think’. There have been some rough times but she now feels it is all working out okay.

3. Susie is a forty year old self-identified ‘lesbian’ who self refers because she is wondering about her sexuality. She has met a man at work who she has fallen in love with. They have begun to have a relationship and Susie feels this is just right for her. Nearly all her friends are lesbians, however, and she is worried about telling them about her new partner. As a result the strain of keeping the relationship a secret is putting a strain on both of them and she ‘just wants to run away and start all over again somewhere where nobody knows me’.

4. Matthew is eighteen and has been referred to you by his school nurse. He confided in her that he was ‘worried he might be gay’. He has a girl friend who he loves very much but has recently found himself looking at other boys at school. He has been out on the scene a few times, ‘been picked up’ and enjoyed having sex with a couple of men. He then feels really guilty, however, and doesn’t know what to do.

7 Websites http://www.bicon2006.org.uk/ http://www.bifest.org/ http://www.bicommunitynews.co.uk/ http://bi.org/ (http://bi.org/db/res.html is a useful list of resources) http://www.fencesittersball.co.uk/ http://www.bisexualunderground.org/ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq. (US) http://bi.org/uk-poly/polyuk.html (UK) http://www.queeryingpsychology.org.uk/ http://www.criticalsexology.org.uk/

References Anapol, D. M. (1997). Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits. California, US: IntiNet Resource Centre. Anderlini-D’Onofrio S. (Ed.) (2004). Plural Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living. NY: Harrington. Barker, M. (2004). This is my partner, and this is my… partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. International Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 75-88. Barker, M. (forthcoming, 2006). and the exclusion of bisexuality in psychology. In V. Clarke and E. Peel (Eds.) Out In Psychology: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans perspectives. Chichester: Wiley. Barker, M., Bowes-Catton, H., Iantaffi, A., Cassidy, A. and Brewer, L. (under review). British Bisexuality: A Snapshot of Bisexual Identities in the UK. . Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1984), Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: The Athlone Press. Easton, D. and Liszt, C. A. (1997), The Ethical Slut. California, US: Greenery Press. Fassinger, R.E. (2000), Applying counseling theories to lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: Pitfalls and possibilities. In: Handbook of Counseling and Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, eds. R.M. Perez, K.A. DeBord & K.J. Bieschke. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 107-131. Firestein, B. A. (Ed.) (1996), Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority. London: Sage. Fox, R. (ed) (2004). Current Research on Bisexuality. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press. Jackson, S. and Scott, S. (2004). The personal is still political: heterosexuality, feminism and monogamy. Feminism & Psychology, 14 (1) 151-157. Klein, F. (1993), . Harrington Park Press. Munsen, M. and Stelbourn, J. P. (Eds.) (1999). The Lesbian Polyamory Reader. NY: Harrington Park Press. Ochs, R. (Ed.) (2005). The Bisexual Resource Guide. NY: Bisexual Rescoures Ctr. Orndorff, K. (Ed.) (1998), Bi Lives: Bisexual Women Tell Their Stories. Sharp Press. Petford, B. (2003). Power in the darkness: some thoughts on the marginalization of bisexuality in psychological literature. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 4(2), 5-13. Ritchie, A. & Barker, M. (in press). ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up’: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, Robinson, V. (1997). My baby just cares for me: feminism, heterosexuality and non- monogamy. Journal of , 6 (2), 143-157. Storr, M. (Ed.) (1999), Bisexuality: A Critical Reader. London: Routledge.

8