Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 273–285, 1999 Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0277-5395/99 $–see front matter 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 the- orists 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 hetero- sexual imperative that women should love men, and an undermining of the power and resistance in- volved 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 con- siderable anger and pain at their husbands’ be- haviour. 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.