Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with
Furl.net. It's free! Save it.
Paula C. Rodriguez Rust [*]
The cultural construction of "lesbian" and
"heterosexual" women in late-nineteenth-century European cultures created both
the possibility of conceiving the "bisexual" woman and the belief that
bisexuality cannot exist. Social scientists have suggested several
alternatives to dichotomous constructions of sexuality to facilitate the
conceptualization of and therefore empirical research on, bisexuality. This
article reviews these alternatives and summarizes the current state of
research on bisexuality, including research on "situational homosexuality" (behavioral
bisexuality), recent national probability studies on sexual behaviors and
identities in the United States, the meanings of bisexual self-identities
among women, masculinist biases in methods of assessing and theorizing sexual
self-identities, and prejudice against bisexuals. The article concludes with
suggestions for future social scientific research on bisexuality.
As we end the second millennium and begin the third, bisexuality is both
uniquely conceivable and uniquely inconceivable in Western culture. This
paradoxical position is the result of larger social and cultural factors that
have shaped not only modern bisexuality but modern sexuality in general.
Understanding bisexuality, therefore, is a key to understanding the cultural
and historical factors that have affected not only bisexual but also lesbian
and heterosexual women. In this article, I briefly describe the historical
changes that produced the contemporary bisexual paradox, and I show how
contemporary attitudes toward bisexuality result from this paradox. I then
review social scientific efforts to reconceptualize bisexuality for the
purposes of scientific study and summarize empirical research pertinent to
bisexuality among women, including research on "situational homosexuality,"
the prevalence of bisexual behavior and identity in the United States, the
meanings of bisexual self-identities and the ways in which women use sexual
self-identities, racial and ethnic differences in patterns and meanings of
bisexuality, and evidence of prejudice against bisexuals among heterosexuals
and among lesbians and gay men (see also Rust, 1999, 2000).
Historical Paradoxes
Prior to the development of the concepts of the "lesbian" and the
"heterosexual woman" as distinct types of people in the late nineteenth century,
women in European and European-derived cultures were defined primarily by their
familial relationships with husbands and children (Katz, 1995). Marriage served
primarily economic and procreative functions rather than emotional functions,
and women were expected to form their closest emotional bonds with other women
(Smith-Rosenberg, 1975). Even if and when these bonds became sexual, women were
not seen as "lesbians" because of their same-sex activities nor as a "bisexual"
because of their simultaneous marriages to men, but as "women" because of their
familial relationships with husbands and children. Thus, the tacit practice of
bisexuality coexisted with the nonexistence of a concept of a (bi)sexual
individual.
The late-nineteenth-century shift toward viewing women and men as eroticized
individuals produced not only lesbians and heterosexual women, but also the
possibility of conceptualizing bisexuality as a combination of lesbianism and
heterosexuality. The gendered nature of the distinction between lesbianism and
heterosexuality was critical in producing this possibility. If the newly
eroticized individual had not been classified according to the gender to which
she was attracted, the idea that she could be attracted to both genders would be
unnecessary and nonsensical. The paradox lies in the fact that the same
nineteenth-century beliefs in the mutual exclusivity of womanhood and manhood
and in the inescapable importance of gender that produced concepts of gendered
eroticism also produced the belief that sexual attraction must be directed
toward either men or women. If men and women are "opposite" genders, then
attractions toward women and men must also be opposite attractions that cannot
coexist simultaneously within a single individual. If one is attracted to a man,
how can one simultaneously be attracted to a woman who is everything a man is
not and nothing that he is?
Ironically, therefore, the construction of lesbianism and heterosexuality
pulled the rug out from under bisexuality. Whereas women in the nineteenth
century might have enjoyed some freedom of bisexual expression in a culture that
did not conceive of lesbians or heterosexuals, let alone bisexuals, the
contemporary belief that lesbians and heterosexuals do exist has led to the
possibility of conceptualizing bisexuality while also producing the belief that
bisexuality cannot exist and thereby eroding the cultural space available for
women's bisexual expression. The factors that have created this bisexual paradox
are the same factors that have created contemporary lesbianism and
heterosexuality. Understanding bisexuality among women, therefore, has the
potential to shed light not only on the sexuality of bisexual women but also on
the sexuality of lesbian and heterosexual women.
Contemporary Cultural Attitudes Toward Bisexuality
One of the greatest challenges facing bisexual women in contemporary Western
culture is the belief that bisexuality does not exist. Women who claim to be
bisexual are often told that they are "denying" their true sexuality, which must
be either lesbian or heterosexual. Some young women who seek sexual experiences
with other women are pegged as heterosexuals who are merely "experimenting" with
women because lesbianism is chic. Other women, especially women who participate
in lesbian communities but identify themselves as bisexual, are told that they
are really lesbians who have not yet realized it because they are still coming
out. If they continue to claim they are bisexuals, they are often accused of
knowing they are really lesbians but purposefully denying it to avoid others'
prejudices or to avoid sharing the burden of struggling against heterosexism.
Bisexuality is sometimes seen as a cop-out or a way to get the "best of both
worlds" without having to commit oneself to a particular lifestyle or a particu
lar partner (e.g., Esterberg, 1997; Rust, 1993).
In addition to disbelief, bisexuals encounter many stereotypes about their
sexuality. Because attractions to women and men are culturally constructed as
contrary to each other, bisexuals are thought to be internally conflicted,
emotionally or psychologically immature, or otherwise unstable. Bisexuals are
also stereotyped as "needing" both male and female sex partners, as incapable of
monogamy because they cannot be satisfied by only one partner, and as very
sexually active. The cultural logic is as follows: A heterosexual's partner must
be other-sex because s/he cannot be satisfied by a same-sex partner, and a
lesbian or gay man's partner must be same-sex because s/he cannot be satisfied
by an other-sex partner. Therefore, bisexuals must need both other-sex and
same-sex partners to satisfy, respectively, the "heterosexual side" and the
"lesbian/gay side" of their sexualities. In truth, few bisexuals have both
female and male partners simultaneously (Rust, 2000), and even fewer feel that
they "need" both fema le and male partners to be bisexual (Rust, in press). Just
as an individual who appreciates both blue and brown eyes might be satisfied
with either a blue-eyed or a brown-eyed lover without feeling a need for both,
many bisexuals do not feel that their bisexuality requires them to be sexually
active with both women and men simultaneously.
Reconceptualizing Sexuality to Create Space for Bisexuality
How, then, might we conceptualize bisexuality? Social scientists, pointing
out that dichotomous conceptions of sexuality have led to a neglect of
bisexuality in sex research, have offered numerous alternative models of
sexuality. As noted by Rothblum (this issue), the best known of these
alternatives is the 7-point scale proposed by Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues
(Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948), which ranges from exclusive heterosexuality,
through degrees of bisexuality, to exclusive homosexuality. Other theorists have
proposed using multiple Kinsey-type scales to represent, respectively, sexual
attractions, sexual behaviors, sexual identity, and other aspects of sexuality
(e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Shively, Rudolph, & De Cecco, 1978; Weinberg,
Williams, & Pryor, 1994). The best-known modification of the Kinsey scale is the
Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, in which individuals rate themselves three times
on each of seven dimensions of sexuality; the three ratings reflect the
individual's past, present, and "ideal" selves (Klein, 1993; Klein, Sepekoff, &
Wolf, 1985).
Comment by Naomi De Plume
Whilst I enjoyed and appreciated this piece by renowned researcher Paula
C. Rodriguez Rust, at the same time I felt quite incensed at the trite analogy
of those bisexuals who need a male and female partner, as a choice as trivial as
eye colour! I assure readers that a woman and a man are very much more
than their eye colour or their hair colour. A far more apt analogy, giving
true respect to the force of one's own sexual nature, is for some bisexuals,
like being asked which hand they should have chopped off, without anaesthetic!
As someone who continues to live the pain of monogamy, despite a nature
that is duogamous, I am qualified to make that statement.
Sexual preference is not, for most people, a product of their environment.
More and more, modern research, including brain imaging, shows that it is
innate, and a product of a person's own genetic makeup and brain anatomy. We see that
biological gender, even in the case of intersex people and those with chromosome
"abnormalities", does not indicate sexual preference. It is far more
complex than that.
It is also not something that can be changed, because it is, literally,
hard-wired. Sexual preference is not a conditioned response, but an
unconditioned response. Denying it causes damage not only to the
individual, but also to society.
Whilst I applaud Rust's very valuable contributions, I must also loudly
take issue with statements that trivialise and even denigrate the experience of bisexuals who
genuinely need a male and a female in their lives.
