Bisexual Politics: a Superior Form of Feminism?

Home , Bisexual politics, Loraine Hutchins, Onlywomen Press, Political lesbianism, Sheila Jeffreys, Woman Hating

PII S0277-5395(99)00020-5

BISEXUAL POLITICS: A SUPERIOR FORM OF FEMINISM?

Sheila Jeffreys Department of Political Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia

Synopsis — In this article, I shall examine the ideas and practices of the bisexual movement that has developed in the Western world in the last decade. I shall offer a lesbian feminist critique. Bisexual theorists and activists have formulated critiques of lesbian feminism at their conferences and in anthologies of their writings. Lesbian feminists have been described as “gender fascists,” as monosexists, and as bi- phobic for their failure to embrace bisexuals in theory or in person, but little has been published from a lesbian feminist perspective on these developments. I argue that bisexual politics, rather than forming a superior form of feminism, tends toward a belief in the naturalness of desire, a revaluing of the heterosexual imperative that women should love men, and an undermining of the power and resistance involved in the lesbian feminist decision to choose for women and not men. © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Over the last 10 years, a “bisexual movement” California in the 1970s (Weinberg, Williams, & has developed with conferences and anthologies Pryor, 1995). These male sexual freedom bi- full of ideas on bisexual theory and practice from sexuals adopted a bisexual identity which dis- the United States and the United Kingdom (Fir- tinguishes them from those very numerous estein, 1996; Hutchins & Kaahumanu, 1991; Rose men in heterosexual relationships who engage & Stevens, 1996; Tucker, 1995; Weise, 1992). in sexual behaviour with men on the side in The writings of male and female bisexual ac- quite similar ways but do not adopt a bisexual tivists claim that their politics are progressive, identity. The prevalence of bisexual behaviour and even that bisexual feminism is superior to by men who identify as heterosexual has been lesbian or heterosexual feminism. Bisexual fem- revealed by researchers concerned about HIV/ inists tend to claim the identity “queer” and to AIDS and the promotion of safe-sex behav- complain of the “biphobia” of “monosexist” fem- iour at beats (Australian for cruising grounds inists (monosexists restrict their relationships or “cottages,” public places in which sex takes to just one sex or the other). This movement place amongst anonymous men) (Davis, Dow- remains largely unexamined by lesbian femi- sett, & Klemmer, 1996). This behaviour is re- nist theorists. The time is ripe for a lesbian fem- plete with difficulties for the women that such inist analysis of the phenomenon of bisexual men are involved with. A recent Australian politics. In this article, I shall seek to begin an book, She’s My Wife. He’s Just Sex, makes it exploration of the origins and ideas of the move- clear that thousands, perhaps hundreds of ment, the variety of practices involved, and to thousands of men who do not identify as bisex- gauge its implications for lesbian feminism ual or gay and are in married or de facto rela- through a critical lesbian feminist examination tionships with women, use beats or prostituted of the principal anthologies produced from men and boys without telling their wives (Jo- within the bisexual movement in the United seph, 1997). Some of the wives of these men States and United Kingdom in the 1990s. are in support groups where they express considerable anger and pain at their husbands’ behaviour. There are no similar groups to sup- ORIGINS OF THE BISEXUAL port the male partners of women engaging in MOVEMENT bisexual behaviour, and this should alert us to The origins of the bisexual movement lie in the the different power dynamics at work in male male-dominated sexual freedom movement in and female bisexual behaviour.

273

274 Sheila Jeffreys

Men who engage in this form of bisexual ply an “add on” to their primary heterosexual- behaviour reject the identity bisexual because ity. Nearly all were in primary heterosexual re- they cling to traditional masculinity, which is lationships. exemplified in heterosexuality. Thus Jeffrey, The values of the sexual freedom move- in the Australian study, explains: “I suppose ment are very evident in the ideas and prac- my image is important to me—I wouldn’t want tices described in anthologies of writings by bi- anyone thinking I was bi or a homo” (Joseph, sexuals in the late 1980s and 1990s. These 1997, p. 26). Men like Jeffrey, though they may include male privilege, the expected support of represent the commonest form of bisexual be- women partners who will accept that they haviour, do not have bisexual politics. should not be jealous, the importance of being The men who dominate the contemporary able to separate sex from loving emotion and bisexual movement seem to engage in very the centrality of sadomasochism to bisexual similar behaviour to those described above, practice. But in the 1980s, bisexuality emerged that is, they have wives or de facto partner- as the favoured politics of sexuality for some ships with women and engage in sexual acts new constituencies of women and men. with unknown men at beats, parties, and clubs or by using prostituted men and boys. The most important difference is that men who Varieties of bisexual politics identify as bisexual expect the acceptance of their female partners. They adopt an ideology Bisexuality, as understood by those in- of nonmonogamy, or polyamory, as this is volved in the bisexual movement, covers a known in the bisexual movement, to deflect wide variety of behaviour. I will consider here criticism of their continuing search for sexual what women who identify as bisexual describe excitement with men. The ideological commit- as their bisexual behaviour and practice. Some ment to nonmonogamy might appear, from a of those involved identify as bisexual because feminist perspective, to be necessary in order they sometimes have sexual dreams or fanta- for the men involved to gain the compliance of sies about the same sex, though they never act their wives, retain their free labour in the upon them. Others identify as bisexual be- home, and thus all the privileges of masculine cause they sometimes whip someone of the heterosexual status, whilst being able to access same sex in a sadomasochistic (SM) venue. men for sexual excitement. Others treat their relationships and connected- Activists of bisexual politics explain that ness to women in very similar ways to lesbian though the bisexual “movement” modelled on feminists. They intend always to love women the lesbian and gay movement around the and never to engage sexually with men for the ideas of “coming out” and demanding visibil- rest of their lives, but still call themselves bi- ity, did not get underway until the 1980s, its sexual. The bisexuality of bisexual activist roots lie in the sexual freedom movement in women can include everything from experi- the United States, particularly in the Sexual encing a vague and unconsummated sexual in- Freedom League in San Francisco in the 1970s terest in women to almost lifelong commit- (Tucker, 1995, p. 49). The sexual freedom ment to women. As I examine these varieties movement has been criticised by feminists for of bisexual behaviour I shall seek to show how being about the rights and freedoms of men to they are distinguished from the politics and get whatever they wanted sexually and to use practice of lesbian feminism. women to that end (Jeffreys, 1990). A study of Bisexuality as sexual adventurousness. Many bisexuality by three male U.S. sexologists, bisexual activists seem to see their bisexuality Dual Attraction, is based upon the organisa- as part of their general sexual adventurous- tions set up by men and women involved in the ness. Anthologies on bisexuality almost always sexual freedom movement in San Francisco include pieces by bisexuals who say that they (Weinberg et al., 1995). These 1970s bisexuals engage in bisexuality through prostitution, saw themselves as sexual revolutionaries and since they have women lovers and male cus- were much involved in swinging, sex clubs, and tomers, or in sadomasochism, or swinging. sadomasochism, and strongly committed to Carol Queen, for instance, identifies bisexual- nonmonogamy. The study concludes that the ity as part of “sexual diversity” and as being bisexual behaviour of the respondents is sim- associated with a “sex-positive” perspective

Bisexual Politics: A Superior Form of Feminism 275

(Queen, 1991). For her, a sex-positive perspec- tions between the various degrees of gayness, I tive is one which is positive toward sadomas- was immediately in favor of it” (Ault, 1996, p. ochism and prostitution. Some bisexual peo- 323). This use of the term queer suggests one ple, she says, may manage their “fluidity of reason why that term has been rejected by attraction” “through gender play and other many lesbian feminists who consider that there sorts of role play, polyamorous relationship is a significant distinction between their prac- strategies, and even participation in the sex in- tice and politics and that of the married dustry” (Queen, 1991, p. 114). Some sadoma- woman speaking above, and wish to celebrate chists consider themselves to be bisexual be- that. Lesbian feminists have criticised queer cause they engage in a practice in which the politics for other ways in which it has “disap- gender of the partner is unimportant, parts of peared” lesbians too. They have pointed out the body are interchangeable, and the creation that queer politics undermines the 25-year of an unequal power dynamic is much more struggle by lesbian feminists to make lesbians important than the person upon whom an act visible within mixed lesbian and gay politics, is being performed. Thus, one bisexual sado- marks a renewed male gay hegemony, and masochist explains that SM activities are “gen- forces lesbians into alliance with those whose der-free”: political agendas, in celebrating gender fetish- ism and hierarchy, such as pedophilia, trans- If you are tied face down so that you can’t genderism, and sadomasochism, are quite op- even see the person who is whipping you, posite to those of lesbian feminism (Harne & communicating only by body-language . . . it Miller, 1996; Jeffreys, 1994; Parnaby, 1993). makes little difference whether that person is One woman explained that women at the a woman or a man; what counts is the emo- married women’s workshop at a UK bisexual tional and sensual rapport between the bot- conference agreed that tom and the top. (Mathur, 1996, p. 209) . . . same sex relationships did not affect mar- Here “bisexuality” consists solely of sexual riage vows in the same way that different-sex acts. This is significantly different from the les- ones did, that to “go with” another man was bianism of lesbian feminism, which is not seen adultery and could seriously affect the mar- simply or even necessarily as sexual acts and riage . . . whereas heterosexual husbands re- encompasses a love and valuing of women, a garded another woman as different, even community of friendships and support, the cre- welcome. (Cade, 1996, pp. 116–117) ation of a history and culture and a form of political resistance to male dominance (Fader- This writer has “several people that I play SM man, 1981; Lesbian History Group, 1989). The scenes with” and “shares” female lovers with notions of love and human relationship in- her husband in a shared house. A “Euro- volved in much bisexual practice are extremely queer” describes this variety of bisexuality in impoverished. operation in Brussels:

Bisexuality as an add on to heterosexuality. The bi-scene here features a few mixed sex One grouping of women who define them- (girl/boy) couples who hang out in the les- selves as bisexual can be identified as those bian bars. The boy sits at the bar and watches who have primary relationships with men and his girlfriend pick up another woman, get her relate to women on the side. They reject the la- drunk, and take her home for what turns out bel heterosexual as inhibiting. One such woman to be a threesome with him. (“Euroqueer,” expressed considerable hostility towards lesbi- 1996, p. 287) ans who would not identify with her because of her apparent heterosexuality. “I have met with This bisexual practice entails the sexual exploi- SO much hostility because I dared to identify tation of lesbians for the titillation of hetero- openly as bi when I am married to a man . . .” sexual couples and might account for some (Ault, 1996, p. 323). This woman, like many considerable distrust of bisexuals on the part others, chose the label “queer” as befitting her of lesbians who do not wish to provide such an situation, “when I heard about the movement amusement. The attention to love and rela- to label us all ‘queers’ and forget the distinc- tionship, to loving and valuing women that

276 Sheila Jeffreys

characterises lesbian feminism is quite star- Bisexuality as a way not to identify as les- tlingly absent. Lani Kaahumanu is one of the bian or gay. Some of the writings of bisexual editors of the foundational American anthol- activists do seem to support the notion that ogy Bi Any Other Name. Her bisexuality, like they identify as bisexual on the way to identi- that of the majority of those identifying as bi- fying as lesbian or gay, though bisexual activ- sexual whilst actually living with or married to ists tend to angrily reject the suggestion that men, contains but little woman-loving. She ex- their bisexuality is just a phase. Several of the plains that when she came out as a lesbian in contributors to the anthologies I mention here 1972, she could not find the right woman so add in a postscript that they now identify as she eventually accepted that she was mostly lesbian, for instance (Drake, 1996). The social heterosexual: sanctions and loss of privilege involved in identifying as lesbian are significant and likely [I] accepted myself as the 70-percent straight to encourage women to defer or avoid such a person I probably really am. I have had to definition. One study of bisexual male behav- constantly fight to have the 30-percent les- iour which found that there were significant bian side not be ridiculed or misunderstood. . . . differences between bisexual and homosexual During the eighties I finally began to meet men in the roles they played in anal inter- open, unafraid bisexuals. (Hutchins & course might further support such a notion Kaahumanu, 1991, p. xv) (Stokes, Kittiwut, Vanable, & McKirnan, 1996, p. 155). The bisexual and homosexual men Her understanding of desire is entirely un- were equally likely to have had insertive anal politicised. She “grew up in the sexual revolu- intercourse, whilst only 33% of the bisexual tion” and was “attracted to energy.” This men were likely to have engaged in receptive meant she could fall for a man on a dance floor anal intercourse, relative to 67% of homosex- and entertain his girlfriend in bed in the morn- ual men. Such findings suggest that the bisex- ing. Her bisexuality originated in this state of ual men were those determined to maintain a thoughtless, supposedly “natural” puppyhood. traditional masculine identity, which meant She does not recognise the male power and that they could not be penetrated. sexual exploitation that feminist theorists have identified as organising the supposed paradise Fashionable bisexuality. Sue Wilkinson has of the sexual revolution. addressed the contemporary phenomenon of the fashionability of bisexuality. She explains Imaginary bisexuality. In this category are that lesbians are under pressure in popular les- women who identify as bisexual though they bian and straight culture to have sex with men have had no sexual or romantic relationships and that sex with women is being marketed to with women and do not particularly intend to. heterosexual women as an exciting add-on to Two women in Bi Any Other Name fall into their relationships with men. The pressures are this category. One explains that she is “a 23- strong and lead to the “comprehensive de- year-old married Jewish woman. I have never politicisation of sex and the concomitant era- slept with a woman, nor do I expect to. Yet, I sure of more than two decades of radical femi- am a bisexual” (Reichler, 1991, p. 77) Another nist theory” (Wilkinson, 1996, p. 294). The explains that though she is married and mo- fashionability of bisexuality has even extended nogamous, she is possessed of a bisexuality to the lesbian and gay communities in recent which “influences my perception and my deci- years, to the extent that some trendy lesbians sions. More than having sexual relations with and gay men, committed to queer politics and both genders, bisexuality is a mind frame, a sexual freedom, have taken to having highly reference point from which to view the world . . .” publicised sex with each other. They maintain (Yoshizaki, 1991, p. 25) Such a bisexual “mind that their heterosexual behaviour does not im- frame,” which consists of sitting at home with a pinge upon their lesbian and gay identities (see man and dreaming about what it might mean Field, 1996). They could be seen as succumb- to love women, though it might form the first ing to the pressure of compulsory heterosexu- stage of a leap into a world of woman-loving, is ality, especially when the bisexual behaviour is of a rather different order from the lesbian reluctant or about disgust, as in “Jack and Jill perspective acquired from experience. Jerk Off” parties in the United States. At these

Bisexual Politics: A Superior Form of Feminism 277

parties, gay men engage sexually, in public and Terris was and remains a fan of gay male sex- in black leather, with lesbians. Bill Strubbe ual practice. Lesbian feminism did not mea- (1997) calls his report on this scene “Getting a sure up and indeed involved political critiques Grip on the Ick Factor”’ and explains that of many of the practices her gay role models many gay men are revolted by the very idea of engaged in. Thus she concluded that she “felt women’s genitals. He seeks to get over this re- like a faggot trapped in the body of a lesbian” vulsion and put his finger in the vagina of a (Terris, 1991, p. 58). “sex-slave” being led around by a lesbian: A more surprising constituency of bisexual “That familiar revulsion, followed by the sense feminists is composed of those who have expe- that I am doing the most perverted thing in my rienced relationships with men at some time in life: a fag peering up a cunt” (Strubbe, 1997, p. the past and are now committed to women. 47). In this bisexual scenario, disgust at women’s They often express a commitment to women genitals is the entertainment. It may be fash- for life and are unable to imagine ever again ionable but it does not seem to be in the inter- relating to men. When lesbian feminists like ests of women’s freedom. In fact, Strubbe ex- myself came out in very similar circumstances plains, such parties have trouble attracting in the 1970s and 1980s, we came out as lesbi- women at all. ans. We too loved women, and committed ourselves to women, recognising that we had chosen Feminist bisexuality. Many of the women to be lesbians (Leeds Revolutionary Feminist who identify as feminist bisexuals explain that Group, 1981). These bisexual lesbians, as they they were previously lesbian feminists but then sometimes label themselves, believe that they realised they were attracted to men. They set need to acknowledge that they have been able up support groups for lesbians becoming bi- to experience love or sexual attraction to men. sexual and brought with them into the bisexual Stacey Young, in Bi Any Other Name, explains movement feminist ideas, such as the impor- how this works: tance of confronting compulsory heterosexuality. Ruth Gibian talks of the elation of becom- A friend of mine, Leslie, identifies as a les- ing a lesbian, but then, “I fell in love with a bian because she prefers women. . . . But man” (Gibian, 1992, p. 4). Women such as now, she wants a way to feel comfortable Ruth, though now with men, want to maintain owning and acknowledging all her past sex- their friendships and community with lesbians and ual experiences and emotions with men. “I certainly have feminist politics. They express really was attracted to men and enjoyed sex considerable hurt that the fact that they live with with them.” (Young, 1992, p. 64) and love men often does affect the nature of their welcome in the lesbian feminist community. Beth Elliott explains that “Many of us are liv- Some found lesbian feminism unsatisfac- ing what are basically lesbian lives, but don’t tory. Ellen Terris in “My Life as a Lesbian- want to feel restricted by adopting a ‘lesbian’ identified Bisexual Fag Hag,” explains that she label” (Elliott, 1992, p. 237). The determina- was a “hard-core lesbian separatist” for a year, tion to be counted as “bisexual” may appear to and then “tapered off to mellow lesbian-femi- be in contradiction to the actual practice of nist” (Terris, 1991, p. 57). She gave that up such women. Thus, as Elliott describes, “One when she found the sex was not hot enough. woman, in a discussion at the first National Bi- She “got laid . . . occasionally,” but the sex was sexual Conference, practically apologized for not what she wanted: being so woman-orientated that she wondered if she technically might not really be bi since . . . the politically correct lesbian sexuality she had yet to be involved with a man” (Elliot, seemed to be monogamy, or serial monog- 1992, p. 237). amy with a curious vacuum in the sweaty- Many of the ex-lesbians who now identify passion department. No hot fucking, no as bisexual as well as those who love women “dirty” patriarchal stuff; no roles, no butch but at one time engaged in sexual practice with or femme; and definitely none of that stuff men, speak of the necessity of recognising and with the sinister acronyms like (gasp! hor- claiming their “own sexual and emotional rors!) S&M— apparently, no sense of hu- truth” (Goswami, 1991, p. 62). This suggests an mour either—allowed. (Terris, 1991, p. 57) underlying essentialist assumption in the new

278 Sheila Jeffreys

bisexuality. In this version of bisexuality women sonal shortcoming, but we felt that marriage who are engaged in relationships with women was the next step in our development as a and identifying as lesbian can experience sex- couple. (Yoshizaki, 1992, p. 155) ual interest in a man and throw their lesbian politics to the wind because their body has told She is surprised and hurt at the lack of enthusi- them a “truth.” Other women who have cho- asm shown by lesbians towards her marriage sen to love women forever are identifying as “when I come out in the lesbian community as bisexual because they once “knew” a man. having married a man, I am often viewed as a Sexual desire, in itself arguably a political con- traitor at best and leper at worst” (Yoshizaki, struction (Jeffreys, 1990), and even if only 1992, p. 156). fleeting, is treated with the respect due a Sy- Some bisexual feminists write of lesbianism billine prophecy, as indicating the real truth as a kind of convalescent home to which they may and direction of a person’s life. The sexual de- repair to deal with feelings of low self-esteem, sire itself is represented as uncontrollable and or heal from sexual abuse, before going out to incomprehensible. Thus Stacey Young ex- face men again with more strength and knowl- plains that when, after being involved with edge. Sharon Gonsalves, for instance, rejected women, she felt sexually attracted towards a men as a “significant act of my healing” from man it happened quite mysteriously. She says incest and rape (Gonsalves, 1992, p. 115). But that “much to my surprise . . . I fell in love with she returned to men in order to be “true to a man . . .” (Young, 1992, p. 81). Cupid’s arrow myself” and found that she was strengthened is here as irresistible as in all the masculine ro- in being able to get what she wanted from mantic tradition. The characters of this bisex- men. Having a “background in the lesbian ual story are the victims of fate. They are thus community” gave her the “strength and under- strongly distinguished from lesbian feminists standing to be able to make demands on male who cherish the positive choice of lesbianism, partners that as a heterosexual woman I didn’t the experience of constructing their own rebel- have” (Gonsalves, 1992, p. 122). Susanna lious destiny as woman-identified-women in a Trnka explains that being bisexual enables her woman-hating culture. to have a better relationship with the man she Bisexuals who have been lesbians and have lives with. “My bisexuality has brought into received the support of that community under- our relationship a sense of greater space be- standably grieve for what they have lost. Da- tween us” (Trnka, 1992, p. 104). This is rather jenya in Bi Any Other Name expressed feel- different from the way in which lesbians make ingly “. . . the enormous pain a woman feels use of lesbian community, as destination when she is ostracized and isolated from the rather than as a way station. only community she identifies with and loves. It is not a question of being excluded from a The politics of bisexuality few parties and lesbian events” (Dajenya, 1991, p. 250). Some bisexual feminist writings Though the bisexual practice of those writ- show a considerable naivete about why they ing in recent anthologies can differ consider- might be mistrusted in the lesbian community. ably, the politics expressed are surprisingly Amanda Yoshizaki, for instance, despite hav- similar. Bisexual activists tend to say that their ing previously been in the lesbian community practice is superior to that of lesbians and gays as a lesbian, decided not only to have a rela- because they reject the dualism of hetero/ho- tionship with a man but to marry him. Femi- mosexuality. Many say they are superior also nists, not just lesbian feminists, have created in practicing polyamory and providing an ex- swingeing critiques of marriage as an institu- ample of the path into a better sexual future. tion of male dominance (Pateman, 1988). For les- They express considerable hostility towards bians and gay men it is likely to look like an insti- lesbians and gays for being less than welcom- tution of heterosexual privilege. Yet Yoshizaki ing and engaging in “biphobia” towards them. sees no deep reason to question marriage: Some of these claims are examined here.

Despite anthropological or financial reasons, we finally married because it was psychologi- Monosexism. Many bisexual activists, both cally important to us. Perhaps this is our per- women and men, proclaim that their sexuality

Bisexual Politics: A Superior Form of Feminism 279

is more progressive and well adjusted than that the new bisexual studies in this collection are of either lesbians and gay men or heterosexu- dedicated to “celebrating pluralities, reading als. This is because they are not limited by gen- multiplicities, engaging sexual diversities that der in their choice of partners. They break queer the binary” (Hall, 1996, p. 10). The Aus- down the hetero/homo binary, which, they tralian McKenzie Wark also represents bisex- claim, is a male supremacist device to control ual practice as a revolutionary polymorphous and limit people’s sexual expression, in their perversity and explains that the potential of bi- desires and their practice. Thus, one bisexual sexual politics lies in: “The proliferating flow woman interviewed for a study of bisexual of images, freed from the ability of any social identity argued: apparatus to limit interpretation, makes possible an abstract, virtual field of possible de- I wish monosexuals (lesbians and straights) sires” (Wark, 1997, p. 77). The happy clappy were more tolerant of bisexuals. (I wonder approach to doing what comes naturally serves how they would feel, knowing that in my to cover up a universe of complex politically mind these diverse groups can be lumped to- constructed mechanisms for maintaining male gether as “monosexuals,” that is, people who power and female subordination. Hall en- choose to limit their sexuality). (Ault, 1996, thuses that “Desire is [sooo] inherently disor- p. 325) derly” (Hall, 1996, p. 12). Well, not really. In radical feminist theory it is constructed and di- It is precisely the determination to choose rected to maintain a political system of male partners “regardless of gender” that some les- dominant heterosexuality (MacKinnon, 1989). bian feminists find very strange, since we spe- cifically choose women for their “difference” Lesbians and gays accused of biphobia. Re- from men. Women and men do, after all, oc- luctance to accept the bisexual demand to be cupy different power positions within male su- included in lesbian or gay communities, organ- premacist society, which are likely to influence isations, activities, social networks is defined how they have learned to behave and what by bisexual activists as “homosexism” or “bi- rights and privileges they can expect. “Gen- phobia.” Jo Eadie, for instance, accuses lesbians der” encompasses the differences imposed by and gays who do not accept bisexuals of being male dominance and female subordination. afraid of their own heterosexual potential. Lesbian feminists who prefer women are making a deliberate choice in which gender, under- It is clear enough that much lesbian and gay stood as the political dynamics of male domi- biphobia is a panicky enactment of their re- nance, is central rather than irrelevant. jection of their own heterosexual desires. Bisexual activists who make arguments Since to be lesbian or gay is to be threatened about transcending gender tend to be inspired and oppressed, it becomes very important to by postmodernism. Feminist and lesbian femi- prop up your identity in the face of its denial nist theorists have criticised the enthusiasm for by mainstream culture. (Eadie, 1996, p. 17) postmodernism in some areas of feminist and lesbian and gay theory. They have pointed out The accusation of biphobia represents the po- that such theory is depoliticising through the litical qualms that lesbians, gays, or even het- dismissal of categories such as “woman” and erosexuals might have about bisexual politics “lesbian” and the stressing of the fluid and fan- and practice as ignorant prejudice or a psycho- tastic over the material, including the material logical problem. Thus, bisexual activists are inequalities between women and men (Bell & protected from taking political criticism seri- Klein, 1996; Jeffreys, 1993, 1994). Since fluidity ously. and diversity are seen as fundamental to postmodern theory, so too are they to bisexuality, and bisexuality is so diverse and fluid in its Anti-feminism. Many of those who identify practice that it can be seen to represent the with the position of bisexual feminism express ideal postmodern practice. Thus Donald E. considerable anger at lesbian feminists be- Hall explains in RePresenting Bisexualities that cause they consider them to be unsympathetic “BISEXUALITY ϭ POSTMODERNISM EM- to bisexuals. Bisexual activists accuse lesbian BODIED” (Hall, 1996, p. 9). This is because feminists of biological determinism, essential-

280 Sheila Jeffreys

ism, or even “gender fascism.” Lesbian femi- what the similarities and differences are and nists “answered enforced heterosexuality with connect those to the subtle kinds of disem- enforced homosexuality” (Sturgis, 1996, p. 43). powerment present when we are with men. . . . Bisexual feminists, on the other hand, em- (Udis-Kessler, 1992, p. 184) braced men and saw relationships with them as vitally necessary: When women recognise, as bisexual feminists do, that they can love women, it is hard to un- . . . bisexual feminism demands that men be derstand why they would choose to engage in included in any feminist change project. . . . it relationships which subject them to “disem- insists on including men in our lives in deeply powerment.” personal ways—out of choice, not out of In the feminist anthology promoting bisexu- compulsion—it requires political engage- ality, Closer to Home, Beth Elliott explains ment with men in the hope that change is that bisexual feminism is superior and likely to possible. (Sturgis, 1996, p. 43) be the feminism of the future. It is sex-positive and includes men, “Bi-feminists are the women It is an odd assumption that just because lesbi- most likely to pioneer a new, inclusive feminist ans choose not to have men in their beds, or perspective beyond the dualism that lesbian even in their emotional universe, that they do feminism has not yet transcended” (Elliott, not engage with them politically. Lesbian femi- 1992, p. 240). Lesbian feminists are constantly nists are likely to be actively involved in any reproached for refusing to love men, whilst en- number of political struggles against male vio- thusiasm for men makes bisexual feminists su- lence or pornography, for instance, that con- perior. front male power. It is not clear why arguing with men about who takes out the garbage is a more effective form of political engagement Polyamory than campaigning for safe houses or for legal reform. Nonmonogamy or polyamory, as the pur- Amanda Udis-Kessler explains that this suit of more than one emotional and or sexual struggle around the garbage is revolutionary. relationship at one time is called by those in This is because: “Unlike lesbian feminists, our the bisexual movement, is stressed by many ac- attempts to transform rather than reproduce, tivists as both a vital ingredient of bisexual pol- structures of sexism have an immediate impact itics and one which is revolutionary and trans- on men and can actually directly change their formative of mainstream fuddy duddy society. perspectives and behaviour” (Udis-Kessler, 1992, The issue of nonmonogamy has been a con- p. 184). This would help heterosexual femi- tentious one within the lesbian feminist com- nists, she says, who would be inspired by the munity and has been much debated and exper- example of bisexual feminists struggling imented with. Nonmonogamy between women, around the division of labour in their homes. though it may have associated problems as This argument is not new. In the great debates well as joys and can be bedevilled by the between heterosexual and lesbian feminists of power differences of race and class, is at least the late 70s and 80s in the UK, heterosexual free of the faultline of gender. The power rela- feminists argued precisely the same thing, that tionship between bisexual women, who are they were at the coalface, changing men still attached to men, and lesbians, is fraught through their embattled intimacy with them by the heterosexual privilege bisexual women (see some contributions to Onlywomen Press, retain and the very different positions of struc- 1981). It is hard to see why bisexual feminists tural power in the world which the male and would necessarily be more successful at the female lovers of such women occupy. This can coalface than their more commitedly hetero- lead to considerable hurt, which some bisexual sexual sisters. Udis-Kessler seeks to explain women seem not to acknowledge. Eileen the bisexual advantage: O’Connell, for instance, was involved with a lesbian and a man at the same time. The les- When considering our heterosexual relation- bian had to agree that Eileen would not be ships, we have our experiences with women committed to her but she found it difficult to available for comparison; we can determine deal with Eileen’s relationship with a man.

Bisexual Politics: A Superior Form of Feminism 281

Jason on the whole was quite reasonable ries, has claimed figures like Virginia Woolf, about it, although I felt that it was partly Oscar Wilde, Ernest Hemingway, Cary because he found it erotic and a turn on. Grant, the poet D.H. Lawrence’s novella Then I really put the cat among the pi- The Fox, James Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room geons by unintentionally double-booking . . . as gay figures and gay texts, even though them. Unfortunately I was not there when many of them might be more appropriately they turned up on the doorstep together. described as bisexual. (Garber, 1996, p. 28) You can imagine Cath’s face. She apparently just turned and walked off. Cath According to Garber, the “perpetual favou- made my name mud, and my sexuality. rite” that bisexual activists seek to reclaim (O’Connell, 1996, p. 101) from lesbian history is Virginia Woolf. Garber claims Woolf too, as well as other members of It does seem likely that a great deal of lesbian the Bloomsbury set. and gay suspicion of bisexuals stems from precisely such a failure to acknowledge the hurt Yet if any “lifestyle” should be said to typify occasioned by the specific inequality of non- the lives of the Bloomsberries, it is in fact bisex- monogamous practice between a woman who uality. Woolf and Sackville-West were married chooses to love women and one who remains women who had sex with women. Harold attached to the dominant sex. Nicolson had affairs with men throughout his married life. (Garber, 1996, p. 105)

Garber’s book is a collection of anecdotes, a Bisexual takeover of lesbian history and culture list of famous persons and brief descriptions of An aspect of bisexual politics that may be their supposed bisexual adventures with no of concern to lesbian scholars, and all those historical context or critical comment. If this lesbians who take succour from lesbian history list is disassembled it is possible to throw some and culture, is the attempt by some bisexual doubt on the “bisexuality” of those included. It activists and scholars to annexe precisely those could be argued that Virginia Woolf, for exam- figures and works that have been identified as ple, valued women much more than the above part of lesbian history and literature. Bisexual description would imply. She did famously writers claim figures in history, literature, and state, after all, that “Women alone stir my popular culture who have been unearthed by imagination” (Nicholson & Trautman, 1975– lesbian and gay scholars as having had rela- 1980, vol. 4, p. 203). Garber glosses over the tionships with the same sex, as their bisexual significance of the compulsory nature of mar- heroes and antecedents. They use the work of riage 100 years ago for members of the middle lesbian and gay scholars to do this. Marjorie and upper classes. Whilst men like Oscar Garber, who has written a 528-page book de- Wilde might be constrained to marry by soci- voted precisely to the recovery of bisexual he- etal expectations and the lack of a role model roes from lesbian and gay culture, explains for a different and homosexual lifestyle, the that this recovery of bisexuals is proceeding necessity of marriage for women was even apace. The newsletter of the Boston Bisexual more coercive. Women needed to marry for Women’s Network, she records, “included a their subsistence at a time when professional list of ‘Famous Switch-Hitters,” which was occupations were not open to women and in- “culled, interestingly, from a published book heritances went to men. Thus, Virginia Woolf of Lesbian Lists” (Garber, 1996, p. 37). Garber has written most movingly about the necessity argues that many supposedly lesbian and gay of a small private income and a “Room of figures and texts deserve to be recovered for One’s Own” in order to write. bisexual history and culture: Garber pooh-poohs the importance of historical context and the need to be wary of ap- . . . gay and lesbian studies, in an important plying modern notions of bisexual or lesbian and path-breaking move to make visible and or gay identity to historical figures. concrete the culturally repressed (or sup- pressed) homosexual content of many books, I think we may delude ourselves a little films, aesthetic styles, and individual life sto- about how truly “historicized” our notions

282 Sheila Jeffreys

of cultural identity can ever be. The Alex- claimed as bisexual is an impoverished and un- ander the Greats, Vita Sackville-Wests, critical one. Evidence that a character inter- and Eleanor Roosevelts we muse about acted with the opposite sex, however reluc- are as much the constructions of modern tantly, is treated as evidence of bisexuality. biographers, filmmakers, and novelists as When female characters who show enthusiasm they are the “real,” “original,” and “his- for women and distaste for men, or have their toricized” persons who once bore those girlfriends killed off by male suitors, are identi- names. (Woolf in Nicholson & Trautman, fied as bisexual it seems that a new version of 1975–1980, vol. 4, p. 52) the hetero-relational imperative is in operation. Janice Raymond invented the useful term Thus, she concludes, anyone can claim any his- hetero-relations to describe the “wide range of torical figure to support their cause, without affective, social, political, and economic rela- worrying about the reasonableness or political tions that are ordained between men and implications of their case. Such casualness is a women by men” (Raymond, 1994, p. 7). The surprising contrast to the very careful work by hetero-relational imperative enforces such re- lesbian feminist scholars over definitions and lations, or exaggerates their importance in in- the appropriateness, for instance, of calling appropriate contexts. 19th century figures “lesbians” (Lesbian His- tory Group, 1989). Bisexuality and lesbian feminist politics: The The novels which Garber claims for bisexu- importance of choice ality are surprising too. Garber identifies D. H. Lawrence’s The Fox as “One of the most fre- Most of the rhetoric of bisexual politics that quently cited of all fictional narratives about reproaches lesbian feminism and sets up bisex- bisexuality” (Garber, 1996, p. 467). The novella uality as superior is based on either a profound is about two women who live together. A man ignorance or determined avoidance of the decides to separate the women by romancing ideas and practice of lesbian feminism. Com- one of them, with the power of a hunting fox. plex and sophisticated lesbian feminist theory When she refuses to leave her woman friend is reduced in bisexual rhetoric to man-hating for him, he arranges for a tree that is being or gender fascism. In fact, it is the positive felled to fall on his rival. Marriage takes place, choice to love women rather than men that but at the end of the novel March is remark- distinguishes lesbian feminism from bisexual- ably ambivalent and lacking in enthusiasm for ity. Unlike a bisexual identity, a lesbian femi- her imposed heterosexual future. There is no nist identity is not based in “biology” or sexual enthusiastic bisexuality in this novel and it “truth” or even on simply what women do or might more easily be seen as representing a have done with their genitals. It encompasses a masculine determination to show that a man great deal more than sexual acts. As the les- will always be able to conquer lesbianism or as bian feminist philosopher Claudia Card puts it: an example of how hard it was for women to successfully live and love together in the pe- Self-identification as lesbian . . . is not simply on riod in which the story is set. the basis of significant lesbian experiences but Friendly Young Ladies by Mary Renault is usually indicates having made lesbian relation- another novel with a similar plot: man splits up ships central to one’s life, having chosen to or- lesbian couple and wins the girl. Erin G. Carl- ganize one’s life around lesbian experience and ston, in the cultural studies collection RePre- possibilities, being committed to certain orien- senting Bisexualities, explains that the novel is tations of one’s attention, energy flow, re- a “theorization of bisexuality that challenges sources, etc. (Card, 1995, p. 34) the dominant medical and literary discourses on homosexuality in its time” (Carlston, 1996, Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger explain, in p. 165). This novel too can more reasonably be their ground-breaking anthology Heterosexu- read as revealing the forces of compulsory het- ality: erosexuality and the difficulties of choosing to love women in 1940s Britain. Affirming our lesbianism is a liberatory fem- The definition of bisexuality which allows inist act. When we say we are lesbian, it is such historical and literary figures to be not (necessarily) because we never enjoyed

Bisexual Politics: A Superior Form of Feminism 283

sex with men . . . not (necessarily) because Not to love men is, in male-supremacist cul- we are never sexually attracted to men . . . ture, possibly the single most execrable sin. . not because we experience our sexuality as a . . Not to love men is so vile in this scheme of “rigid,” “fixed,” “essential personal at- values that it cannot be conceived as the tribute.” . . . but because we are making a po- merely negative thing it is, as a simple ab- litical statement. (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, sence of interest, but must be seen as positive 1993, pp. 7–8) enmity. (Frye, 1983, p. 135)

In contrast bisexual women can be seen as re- When women choose to be lesbians this choice maining loyal to man loving and continuing to offers powerful advantages. “The power avail- allow men access actually, or, in the case of able to those who choose, who decide in favor those who relate only to women but choose to of deviance from heterosexual norms, can be call themselves bisexuals because they have very great” (Frye, 1983, p. 150). One advan- “known” a man, symbolically. The decision to tage is that it allows lesbians to integrate their express loyalty in the label or practice of bisex- emotional and sexual lives with their feminist uality is understandable because of the punish- politics, to have, as Claudia Card puts it “a cer- ments that accrue to those who are disloyal. As tain integrity of emotional response with polit- Frye comments: “conscious and deliberate ex- ical belief” (Card, 1995, pp. 49–50). Lesbian clusion of men by women, from anything, is feminists translate their commitment to blatant insubordination, and generates in women women and feminism into loving relationships fear of punishment and reprisal (fear which is with those who are the centre of their political often well-justified)” (Frye, 1983, p. 103). lives and the force of their revolution, women, Rather than bisexual politics being new and instead of members of the dominant class, men. progressive, elements of this politics may rep- The choice of woman loving allows lesbian resent a threat to the gains of community and feminists to envision and create an alternative visibility that lesbians have won. Bisexual poli- world from the male supremacist hetero-rela- tics poses a challenge to the continued visibil- tional one, based upon lesbian values, particu- ity of lesbian feminism. The constant reitera- larly an alternative lesbian sexuality (Hart, tion of the possibility of lesbian choice is 1996). The choice that lesbian feminists make necessary in a male supremacist culture which for women is a political act. Cheryl Clarke ex- will continually occlude that choice and repre- plains that lesbianism is “an act of resistance” sent lesbianism simply as a sexual titillation in (Clarke, 1981, p. 128). It is an act of resistance men’s sex industry, as sexual excitement in the because heterosexuality as an institution form of an add on to conventional heterosexu- founds and shapes male supremacy (Rich, ality, as just sexual practice, or as fashion. As 1984). Lesbian feminist theorists have analy- Frye points out, the practice of lesbian femi- sed the ways in which heterosexuality con- nism is already “almost unthinkable” (Frye, structs and organises the oppression of 1983, p. 145). women. Heterosexual feminists are only just The choice to be a lesbian is already con- beginning to respond to the invitations by les- strained, as other choices are for women, by bians to take part in this theory making (see structural inequality. Women with jobs that contributions to Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 1993; pay well, women who are childless, can make Richardson, 1996). Such critical analysis of such a choice much more easily, for instance. heterosexuality is absent from the vast major- The attack on the exclusivity and gender fas- ity of bisexual theory. cism of lesbian choice, however, the impera- The choice to love only women resists a tives of queer politics to love men, may make it fundamental principle enforced by male su- even more difficult for women to make a les- premacy, as Marilyn Frye points out, that of bian choice in the future. They may feel con- man-loving. Gay men, heterosexual women, strained to leave the way open for male access bisexual women, heterosexual men, all love to their bodies and emotions as some of those men. They are conformists. Only lesbians are in bisexual anthologies now do, despite their resisters and rebels who put women first and actual interest only in women. It has always re- refuse to love men against all the pressures of quired great courage to choose women and if a the male-dominant, man-loving culture. new bisexual imperative were to arise, as bi-

284 Sheila Jeffreys

sexual politics attacks and disappears lesbian Card, Claudia. (1995). Lesbian choices. New York: Colum- feminist ideas and practice, then the choice bia University Press. Carlston, Erin G. (1996). Versatile interests: Reading might become even more difficult. The Wein- bisexuality in “The Friendly Young Ladies”. In Donald berg et al. study of bisexuality in San Francisco E. Hall & Maria Pramaggiore (Eds.), RePresenting noticed that a change was already happening. Bisexualities. Subjects and cultures of fluid desire (pp. 165–179). New York: New York University Press. Older homosexuals are most likely to em- Clarke, Cheryl. (1981). Lesbianism: An act of resistance. In Cherríe Moraga & Gloria Anzaldúa (Eds.), This bridge phasize exclusivity of same-sex partners as called my back. Writings by radical women of color (pp. the basis of a homosexual identity, since this 128–137). Watertown, MA: Persephone Press. is the identity they had to fight for. Younger Dajenya. (1991). Sisterhood crosses gender preference homosexuals, however, can approach an al- lines. In Loraine Hutchins & Lani Kaahumanu (Eds.), Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak out. (pp. 247– ready-won identity and experiment with it. 251). Boston: Alyson Publications. Such experimentation includes bisexuality. Davis, Mark, Dowsett, Gary, & Klemmer, Ulo. (1996). On (Weinberg et al., 1995, p. 299) the beat. In Sharon Rose & Cris Stevens (Eds.), Bisex- ual horizons. Politics, histories, lives (pp. 188–199). The identity of lesbian, as a woman who re- London: Lawrence and Wishart. Drake, Kelly. (1996). Bisexuality and spirituality. In fuses male access and engages in an act of re- Sharon Rose & Cris Stevens (Eds.), Bisexual horizons. sistance to male power, has certainly not be- Politics, histories, lives (pp. 111–113). London: Lawrence come a safe or certain one. Judging by the and Wishart. hostility expressed towards lesbian feminism’s Eadie, Jo. (1996). Being who we are (and anyone else we might want to be). In Sharon Rose & Cris Stevens prioritising of women in the bisexual antholo- (Eds.), Bisexual horizons. Politics, histories, lives (pp. gies, it is still a stigmatised and risky identity. 16–20). London: Lawrence and Wishart. Thus the “no-saying” that lesbianism consti- Elliott, Beth. (1992). Holly near and yet so far. In Elizabeth tutes is as important today as ever it was. Reba Weise (Ed.), Closer to home. Bisexuality and fem- Bisexual politics are distinguished from les- inism (pp. 233–254). Seattle: Seal Press. Euroqueer. (1996). Bisexuality in Brussels. In Sharon Rose bian feminist politics by the lack of any femi- & Cris Stevens (Eds.), Bisexual horizons. Politics, histo- nist critique of the construction of love and de- ries, lives (pp. 287–288). London: Lawrence and Wishart. sire and all their manifestations. The vast Faderman, Lillian. (1981). Surpassing the love of men: majority of bisexual politics treats sex acts as Romantic friendship and love between women from the Renaissance to the present. London: Junction Books. simply doing what comes naturally, and is mo- Field, Nicola. (1996). Trade secrets. In Sharon Rose & Cris tivated by a sexual freedom agenda of any- Stevens (Eds.), Bisexual horizons. Politics, histories, thing goes. Even bisexual feminist activists who lives (pp. 133–141). London: Lawrence and Wishart. have a critique of heterosexuality and seek to Firestein, Beth A. (Ed.). (1996). Bisexuality. The psychol- incorporate feminist ethics of love and sex into ogy and politics of an invisible minority. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. their relationships are distinguished from les- Frye, Marilyn. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in femi- bian feminists by having chosen to love men. nist theory. New York: The Crossing Press. These are significant political differences. It is Garber, Marjorie. (1996). Vice versa. Bisexuality and the important that women who choose for women eroticism of everyday life. New York: Touchstone, Simon and Schuster. should be able to celebrate that choice and not Gibian, Ruth. (1992). Refusing certainty: Toward a bisexu- feel under any more pressure than already ex- ality of wholeness. In Elizabeth Reba Weise (Ed.), ists under male supremacy to afford men ac- Closer to home. Bisexuality and feminism (pp. 3–16). cess to their persons or their identities. Seattle: Seal Press. Gonsalves, Sharon. (1992). When healing becomes possible. In Elizabeth Reba Weise (Ed.), Closer to home. Bisexuality and feminism (pp. 115–126). Seattle: Seal Press. REFERENCES Goswami, Chandini. (1991). My underself. In Loraine Hutchins & Lani Kaahumanu (Eds.), Bi Any other Ault, Amber. (1996). The dilemma of identity: Bi women’s name: Bisexual people speak out (pp. 60–63). Boston: negotiations. In Steven Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/soci- Alyson Publications. ology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Hall, Donald E. (1996). BI-ntroduction II: Epistomologies of Bell, Diane, & Klein, Renate (1996). Radically speak- the fence. In Donald E. Hall & Maria Pramaggiore (Eds.), ing:feminism reclaimed. Melbourne: Spinifex/London: RePresenting Bisexualities. Subjects and cultures of fluid Zed Press. desire (pp. 8–16). New York: New York University Press. Cade, Felicity. (1996). Marriage and bisexuality. In Sharon Harne, Lynne, & Miller, Elaine. (Eds.). (1996). All the rage: Rose & Cris Stevens (Eds.), Bisexual horizons. Politics, Reasserting radical lesbian feminism. London: The histories, lives (pp. 114–118). London: Lawrence and Women’s Press. Wishart. Hart, Nett. (1996). From an eroticism of difference to an

Bisexual Politics: A Superior Form of Feminism 285

intimacy of equals: A radical feminist lesbian separatist Richardson, Diane. (Ed.). (1996). Theorising heterosexual- perspective on sexuality. In Lillian Mohin (Ed.), An ity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. intimacy of equals: Lesbian feminist ethics (pp. 69–77). Rose, Sharon, & Stevens, Cris. (Eds.). (1996). Bisexual London: Onlywomen Press. horizons. Politics, histories, lives. London: Lawrence Hutchins, Loraine, & Kaahumanu, Lani. (Eds.). (1991). Bi and Wishart. any other name: Bisexual people speak out. Boston: Stokes, Joseph, Kittiwut, Taywaditep, Vanable, Peter, & Alyson Publications. McKirnan, David J. (1996). Bisexual men, sexual Jeffreys, Sheila. (1990). Anticlimax: A feminist perspective behaviour and HIV/AIDS. In Beth A. Firestein (Ed.), in the sexual revolution. London: The Women’s Press. Bisexuality. The psychology and politics of an invisible Jeffreys, Sheila. (1993). The lesbian heresy. A feminist per- minority (pp. 149–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. spective on the lesbian sexual revolution. Melbourne: Sturgis, Susan M. (1996). Bisexual feminism: Challenging Spinifex/London: The Women’s Press. the splits. In Sharon Rose & Cris Stevens (Eds.), Bisex- Jeffreys, Sheila. (1994). The queer disappearance of lesbi- ual horizons. Politics, histories, lives (pp. 41–44). Lon- ans. Women’s Studies International Forum, 17, 459–472. don: Lawrence and Wishart. Jeffreys, Sheila. (1997). Transgender activism. Journal of Strubbe, Bill. (1997). Getting over the ick factor. Outrage, Lesbian Studies, 1(3/4), 55–74. May. Joseph, Sue. (1997). She’s my wife. He’s just sex. Sydney: Terris, Ellen. (1991). My life as a lesbian-identified bisex- Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. ual fag hag. In Loraine Hutchins & Lani Kaahumanu Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group. (1981). Political les- (Eds.), Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak out bianism: The case against heterosexuality. In Only- (pp. 56–59). Boston: Alyson Publications. women Press (Eds.), Love your enemy: The debate Trnka, Susanna. (1992). A pretty good bisexual kiss there. . between heterosexual feminism and political lesbianism. . . In Elizabeth Reba Weise (Ed.), Closer to home. London: Onlywomen Press. Bisexuality and feminism (pp. 103–114). Seattle: Seal Lesbian History Group. (1989). Not a passing phase. Press. Reclaiming lesbians in history 1840–1985. London: The Tucker, Naomi. (1995). Bay area bisexual history: An inter- Women’s Press. view with David Lourea. In Naomi Tucker (Ed.), Bisex- MacKinnon, Catharine. (1989). Towards a feminist theory ual politics. Theories, queries, and visions (pp. 47–61). of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. New York: The Harrington Park Press. Mathur, Gyan. (1996). Sado-masochism and bisexuality. In Udis-Kessler, Amanda. (1992). Closer to home: Bisexual Sharon Rose & Cris Stevens (Eds.), Bisexual horizons. feminism and the transformation of hetero/sexism. In Politics, histories, lives (pp. 206–210). London: Lawrence Elizabeth Reba Weise (Ed.), Closer to home. Bisexual- and Wishart. ity and feminism (pp. 183–201). Seattle: Seal Press. Nicholson, Nigel, & Trautman, Joanne. (1975–1980). The Wark, McKenzie. (1997). Bisexual meditations. In Jill letters of Virginia Woolf (6 vols.). New York: Harcourt, Julius Matthews (Ed.), Sex in public. Australian sexual Brace, Jovanovich. cultures (pp. 63–77). St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: O’Connell, Eileen. (1996). Coming out. In Sharon Rose & Allen and Unwin. Cris Stevens (Eds.), Bisexual horizons. Politics, histo- Weinberg, Martin S., Williams, Colin J., & Pryor, Douglas ries, lives (pp. 100–104). London: Lawrence and Wishart. W. (1995). Dual attraction. Understanding bisexuality. Onlywomen Press. (Eds.). (1981). Love your enemy: The New York: Oxford University Press. debate between heterosexual feminism and political les- Weise, Elizabeth Reba. (Ed.). (1992). Closer to home. bianism. London: Onlywomen Press. Bisexuality and feminism. Seattle: Seal Press. Parnaby, Julia. (1993). Queer straits. Trouble and Strife: Wilkinson, Sue. (1996). Bisexuality a la mode. Women’s The Radical Feminist Magazine, 26, 13–16. Studies International Forum, 19, 293–300. Pateman, Carole. (1988). The sexual contract. Cambridge, Wilkinson, Sue, & Kitzinger, Celia. (Eds.). (1993). Hetero- UK: Polity Press. sexuality. A feminism and psychology reader. London: Queen, Carol. (1991). The queer in me. In Loraine Hutchins Sage. & Lani Kaahumanu (Eds.), Bi any other name: Bisexual Yoshizaki, Amanda. (1991). I am who I am–A married people speak out (pp. 17–21). Boston: Alyson Publica- bisexual teacher. In Loraine Hutchins & Lani Kaahu- tions. manu (Eds.), Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak Raymond, Janice. (1994). The transsexual empire. New out (pp. 25–26). Boston: Alyson Publications. York: Teachers’ College Press. Yoshizaki, Amanda. (1992). Breaking the rules: Construct- Reichler, Rifka. (1991). A question of invisibility. In ing a bisexual feminist marriage. In Elizabeth Reba Loraine Hutchins & Lani Kaahumanu (Eds.), Bi any Weise (Ed.), Closer to home. Bisexuality and feminism other name: Bisexual people speak out (pp. 77–78). Bos- (pp. 155–162). Seattle: Seal Press. ton: Alyson Publications. Young, Stacey. (1992). Breaking silence bout the “B-Word”: Rich, Adrienne. (1984). Compulsory heterosexuality and Bisexual identity and lesbian-feminist discourse. In lesbian existence. In Ann Snitow (Ed.), Desire: The pol- Elizabeth Reba Weise (Ed.), Closer to home: Bisexual- itics of sexuality. London: Virago. ity and feminism (pp. 75–87). Seattle: Seal Press.