Bisexuality - The Thing to Be?

Bisexuality seems to be the new hip thing to identify as in our mainstream society. It seems like every college-aged women is bisexual and one can’t watch a movie or TV show without seeing two women kiss. However, looks can be deceiving. Although it seems as if individuals who identify as bisexual are the stars of mainstream sexual culture, a deeper look would reveal a very different perception of bisexual individuals in the US. I would argue that bisexual individuals (as well as other individuals who do not fit perfectly on either side of the Kinsey Scale) face exclusion and negativity from both mainstream/heterosexual society and the gay/lesbian community.


In general, people love categories, especially binaries. Binaries create a false sense of simplicity and order in a complex world. Binaries can obviously cause discord by pitting one group against another, but they can also render invisible other groups who do not fit perfectly within them. These groups become marginalized and are often resented simply because they do not fit in. These groups stand as proof that binaries are unrealistic and incorrect and no one likes to be proven wrong. In the context of sexual orientation, there is one major binary: Gay vs. Straight. This binary is accepted by both sides and many members of either side resent those individuals who stand in the face of their social construction. In this post, I am specifically referring to individuals who identify as bisexual.

Now, I want to specifically elaborate on the ways bisexuality is stigmatized by both sides of the binary. However, before I begin, I just want to say, “Not all bisexual individuals are discriminated against equally.” This is especially the case in the mainstream heterosexual culture. Bisexual men and women are treated and viewed in completely different ways. Bisexual women are the jewels of mainstream heterosexual fantasies. They are constantly depicted in movies and TV shows. They are fetishized by most straight men, who constantly fantasize about two women kissing and fondling each other for their entertainment. However, this is not empowering for the women in question. Their attraction to other women is turned into a toy solely for the pleasure of straight men. It is not considered a legitimate desire. Many straight men do not consider it cheating if their girlfriend were to kiss or have sex with a woman. They do not think it is possible for a woman to steal their girlfriend away because implicitly, they believe that a relationship is not a relationship and sex is not sex unless a penis is present. Also many straight men and women believe that bisexual women are ‘easy,’ greedy and completely incapable of having a serious relationship. Bisexual men, on the other hand, are ignored.


In the gay/lesbian community, bisexuality is generally rejected as a viable sexual orientation altogether. In “Dismissal and Appropriation of Bisexuality in Queer, Lesbian, and Gay Theory,” Christopher James discusses commonly endorsed opinions regarding bisexuality in the gay/lesbian community. Bisexuality, if it’s even acknowledged, is either seen as a liminal space (a point of transition) for individuals “who do not know their ‘true’ gay or lesbian selves” (222) or it is seen as a closet for those who are too afraid to come out. However, one’s gender does dictate exactly how one is resented in the gay/lesbian community. Bisexual men are believed to be gay men who are closeted while bisexual women are seen as straight women who only like women until they graduate from college and get married to a man. Gay men and lesbians also think bisexual individuals are greedy and unable to be in a committed relationship, not because they are necessarily slutty, but because it is feared that their desire for both sexes makes it impossible for bisexual people to commit. Now, to some extent, I can understand why homosexual individuals would be resentful of bisexuals. The best and most logical arguments I have heard involve heterosexual privilege and the origins of the homosexual orientation. Martin S. Weinberg, Colin J. Williams and Douglas W. Pyor in their book, "Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality," state that “bisexuals could exercise ‘heterosexual privilege’ – i.e., they could always revert to a comfortable identity rather than suffer the consequences of standing up for their gay rights” (117). Bisexual individuals have the privilege of entering into a heterosexual relationship and would avoid a lot of the stigma that gay men and lesbians have to face on a daily basis. As result, bisexual individuals can be seen as outsiders at best and traitors at worst. And I have also heard that some gay people worry that bisexuality is a fly in the ointment for the theory of sexual orientation as a biological/genetic phenomenon instead of a conscious choice because bisexuals are attracted to both men and women. In my opinion, I do not think that this is the case. Personally, I think it is highly unfair that it is left to gay/lesbian individuals to prove that their sexual orientation is normal or natural. Heterosexual individuals have never had to justify their orientation. In fact, I’m sure many heterosexual people have never really given the origin of their orientation a first or second thought. I think this tension between the gay/lesbian and bisexual communities is ultimately caused by the burden of proof that is forced onto the collective lap of all non-heterosexual individuals in regards to the legitimacy of their respective sexual orientations. I tend to believe this rift would not exist if all orientations were considered equally legitimate without the need to justify it.


Bisexuality, or should I say female bisexuality, is becoming very popular in the mainstream media. We are being led to believe that it is a craze that is leading to a new kind of sexual revolution in this country. I doubt it. I think it is just reaffirming the same heteronormative and prejudiced views on sexuality that have been around for years. However, I think a true sexual revolution will come when all sexual orientations are treated as equally legitimate by mainstream society.

A Quick Thought: Sex Ed Classes

So yesterday, I was thinking about national and standardized sex education classes. Obviously, I think comprehensive sex education classes should be taught in every school all over the country. I think that the hypothetical standardized sex ed classes should discuss certain topics (as listed in my earlier blog post about my dream sex education classes) and specific points and facts within these topics. The standardized classes should also make room for local needs, i.e. a need for an extended discussion about teen pregnancy. I was also thinking about having three mandatory sex classes: one at age 12, one at 15 and one at 17/18 in their senior year of high school. I think these classes should be age appropriate and the issues could be discussed with more complexity as the students mature. I’d imagine that the first class would focus a bit more on physiology/anatomy and puberty than the other classes and the last class would also discuss college life and entering the “real world”. These three classes would be beneficial for two reasons. First, three classes would ensure that the students do not forget important information and help them understand concepts that a one time semester-long health class does not have the time to cover. Secondly, when I think about the kind of person I was at age 12, 15 and 18, it almost seems as if I was three different people with different needs and questions. Having these three year-long classes at three different points in the students’ life would cater to their specific needs and allow for more knowledgeable and well-rounded individuals.

My Dream High School Sex Education Course

Introduction:

Sex education is very important to me. I may be incredibly optimistic in this respect, but I believe that good sex education courses can lead to increased acceptance and open-mindedness in our society as well as a reduction in STI incidence rates and unwanted pregnancies. In this blog post, I will be discussing abstinence-only sex education, comprehensive sex education, my personal experiences with sex education in high school and finally, a rough draft of what my dream high school sex education course would look like.

Abstinence-Only Education:

The Administration for Children and Families defines an abstinence only program as one that teaches:

• There are many benefits to staying abstinent and complete abstinence is expected from all “school aged children”
• Abstinence is the ONLY sure method to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STIs
• One should only have sex in a monogamous, committed marriage
• Premarital sex and having children out of wedlock is physically and psychologically detrimental to the self, one’s family and society
• How to reject sexual advances, alcohol and drugs
• “The importance of gaining self-sufficiency” before having sex

Just looking at this definition, I can already see problems with this kind of sex education. Firstly, how many people do you know have actually stayed abstinent until they were married (if they even got married)? That is not a norm in this society. Telling children and teenagers to do something that most people in their society have not done themselves is very unfair and is setting them up for failure. And what about the people who decide to stay single for the rest of their lives? Should they just go join the priesthood or something? Now, I agree that abstinence is a viable option for unwanted pregnancy and STI prevention. However, the proper use of various types contraception, especially when used in tandem (i.e. using a condom and the pill), provides excellent protection against unwanted pregnancy and STIs. The third point excludes some sexual minorities, such as individuals who are in homosexual relationships and/or polyamorous relationships. Also this definition demonizes the single parent as an individual who is a danger to themselves and to those around them instead of providing much needed support.

In the article, “Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexuality Activity and Teen Pregnancy,” Kohler et al discusses the results of a study they conducted with a sample of heterosexual teens, looking at the relationships amongst the two sex education programs and the age in which teens started having sex and the rates of teen pregnancy. Kohler et al found that abstinence-only programs “had no significant effect in delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing the risk of teen pregnancy and STD” (2007, 349). Also abstinence-only education did not decrease the likelihood of a teen have penile-vaginal intercourse (2007, 1).

Abstinence-based education has a clear moral/religious agenda and desires to block out all dissenting voices. This eligibility requirement on the ACF website states that “applicants must agree not to provide a participating adolescent any other education regarding sexual conduct in the same setting” if they want to receive program funding. It really is all about money. Although the medical community and many people in our society agree that abstinence-only education is not effective, the federal government continues to provide states that teach abstinence-only education with funding. In 2005, the federal government gave $167 million in funding to abstinence-only programs (Kohler et al., 2007, 345).

Comprehensive Sex Education:

The International Planned Parenthood Federation defines comprehensive sex education as a program that has seven components:

• Gender
• Sexual and reproductive health and HIV
• Sexual rights and sexual citizenship
• Pleasure
• Violence
• Diversity
• Relationships

Obviously, I prefer this option and my dream high school sexuality course is based off of comprehensive sex education components. I do wish that CSE was even more comprehensive and, in my rough draft, I have added a few things.

Kohler et al found that CSE programs are associated with reduced teen pregnancy compared to not having any sex education or having an abstinence-only education (2007, 349). It is also “marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in [PV] intercourse” (Kohlet et al., 2007, 1).

My Past Experiences in High School:

I went to an all-girls Catholic high school in New York City and was treated to an abstinence-based sex education course when I was in my sophomore year. Abstinence-based sex education is different from abstinence-only education in the sense that the former emphasizes the importance of abstinence, but does not try to force the students into believing that it is the only option. To the credit of this course, I was shown a condom and a female condom and I was not lied to about their effectiveness. However, I was given pictures of aborted babies and shown a long PowerPoint slide filled with pictures of STI-infected genitalia. And let’s not forget all the stereotypical movies, showing girls being pressured by their jock boyfriends to have sex because “everyone is doing it”. It never ended well for them: They either became pregnant and lived a miserable life or died of AIDS. My class never talked about other forms of contraceptives like the pill, intrauterine devices or diaphragms. The class also focused on heteronormative sexual orientations, identities and relationships. And as for anatomy, the teacher just gave me a diagram of male and female genitalia and sent me on my merry way. In the end, I left that class scared out of my mind. After a month or so, the fear went away and I was left with a lack of knowledge regarding who I was as a sexuality being and an incapability to understand others who were sexually different. This changed over the years due to my own personal life experiences, but for many people, this one sex class is the only sex education they receive.

My Dream High School Sex Education Class:

Before I begin daydreaming, I should state that, although I do strongly agree that sex education should start well before high school, I can imagine how scandalized many parents would be at the thought of their middle-school aged child learning anything besides what they teach in biology class. I am sure that everyone can agree that high school students should have sex education classes. There are many things I wished I had learned more about at a younger age. And there are things that I wish people in general would learn about sexuality. I personally believe that good sex education classes should span the entire year (instead of a semester like in my high school) and should encourage teens to become more accepting and knowledgeable about their bodies and sexuality and those of others. An understanding teen would hopefully lead to an open-minded adult. My dream high school sex education course would discuss topics including, but not limited to:

1.     Tolerance

a.     Emphasize that everyone is different and this difference is not a sign of immorality or any other kind of negativity. People and their sexuality should always be respected.

2.     Definitions of Sex (both the act and the socially constructed label)

a.     Defining sex as a social construction based on socially agreed upon biological characteristics and discuss instances in which the labels of “male” and “female” are not sufficient (i.e. Intersexuality).

b.     Defining sex as not just penile-vaginal intercourse.

c.     A history of how sex (the act) has been portrayed in the country and elsewhere

3.     Gender

a.     What is gender?

b.     The difference between gender, gender identity and gender roles.

c.     Trans* identities

d.     Do two genders really encompass all the individuals in society and do the students think they fit within their prescribed gender roles perfectly?

4.     Sexual Orientation

a.     Cover various forms of sexual orientation: heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, queer as a sexual and political orientation, asexuality, etc.

b.     Sexual minorities and the prejudice and discrimination they face in society (link back to the importance of tolerance)

5.     Anatomy/Physiology

a.     A breakdown of primary and secondary sex characteristics and the chromosomes/hormones that influence them

6.     Pregnancy

a.     The first signs of pregnancy and the physical aspects of pregnancy and giving birth

b.     The choice to not have children as a viable decision

c.     Infertility

d.     Abortion and other controversies

e.     Single parenthood

7.     Sexual Behaviors

a.     Masturbation as a healthy act

b.     Celibacy – How it is different from abstinence and why people choose this option

c.     Sex as a pleasurable act, not just for procreation

8.     Love and Relationships

a.     Various types of relationships

b.     Marriage

c.     Gay marriage: who is for it and who is against it and why?

d.     Staying single as a viable choice

e.     The Pros and Cons of cohabitation

f.      The importance of communication

g.     Love and intimacy – Theories and biological and social components

9.     Various Kinds of Contraception, How they work and Proper Use

a.     The difference between contraception that only prevents pregnancy and the contraception that protects against STIs

b.     Talk about abstinence as another possible form of contraception and as the most effective

10.  STIs

a.     Talk about the major types of STIs (bacterial, viral and ectoparasitic), including how they are contracted, what the symptoms are and what forms of contraception can be used for prevention.

b.     Talk about the stigmas of having an STI in this society and what that can mean for treatment

11.  Rape and other forms of sexual violence

a.     The importance of consent

b.     Dispelling myths

c.     Victim-blaming and other negative reactions that victims face

d.     How to get help

This list is definitely not complete. These are just the things that I can think of off the top of my head. If you have anything to add to this list, don’t hesitate to comment and let me know!

That Sex Demonstration at Northwestern University

Now, before I begin, I just want to say that, in my opinion, this issue is not about Professor Bailey. My interest in this event has nothing to do with Professor Bailey as a person. I do not think he is a human sexuality revolutionary (in fact, I strongly disagree with things he has said in the past) nor do I think he is a pervert corrupting the morals of our youth. My goal for this post is to highlight the events of what happened for those who are not aware and to present the three most common arguments against Bailey’s demonstration (along with my comments).

On February 21, 2011, Professor John Michael Bailey conducted an after-class sexuality demonstration and discussion for his psychology of human sexuality course at Northwestern University. This demonstration was not his first one. He has conducted many of them, inviting various individuals (sex therapists, a plastic surgeon, gay men, two convicted sex offenders, etc) to talk and present various things related to the topic of the psychology of human sexuality. For this particular demonstration, he invited Ken Melvoin-Berg and his colleagues to talk about fetishes and kink after his lecture about sexual arousal. These demonstrations were always after class and optional. No extra credit was ever given to students who stayed behind. The students were told repeatedly that this demonstration was going to be about fetish and kink before the presentation and during the presentation, they were warned repeatedly that it would be graphic and that they could leave at any time. Out of the 600 students who are enrolled in the course, only 120 students stayed for the entire demonstration. A movie was shown that Mr. Melvoin-Berg’s colleagues believed was too clinical and unrealistic and they wanted to prove that the female orgasm was real. After asking Professor Bailey for permission, the woman took off her clothes and laid down on a towel. Her fiancé then penetrated her with a sex toy called a “Fucksaw” (a dildo attached to a power tool base) and brought her to orgasm in front of the class. Professor Bailey, in his official statement, admitted he was hesitant to giving his permission, but states: “Student feedback for this event (I routinely collect feedback for all events) was uniformly positive. Although most students mentioned the explicit demonstration—which they enjoyed and thought was a singular college experience—most also said that the most valuable part was engaging in a dialogue with Ken MB et al.”

Apparently, the events only became controversial once the news spread around campus to students, who did not see the demonstration, and parents. Different articles reported different things. One article says the college supports Professor Bailey and another says the college’s President condemns the demonstration. The school’s own newspaper, The Daily Northwestern, supports Professor Bailey.

While doing some research for this blog and discussing these issues with others, I have come across three main arguments against this sexuality demonstration.

1.     This isn’t appropriate for a class – A Moral Issue

This is the argument I have seen and heard the most. Whether it was fellow students who said they would not be interested in this after-class demonstration or parents who were scandalized that their offspring would be exposed to such a thing. To the former, my response was “Well then, you’d be apart of the majority who just went to their next class then.” No one was forced to stay. The 120 students who saw the demonstration stayed of their own will – no external motivation needed. To the latter, your “children” are now adults, who have the power to make other various choices, like smoking, driving and dying for their country. If all of them agreed that this demonstration was far too obscene, no one would have stayed there long enough to see it. To be honest, I am not at all sympathetic to any argument that turns sexuality into a moral (right and wrong based on various personal religious values) issue. Personally, I believe that sexuality should not be observed from a moral standpoint. Everyone’s morals are different. Some people believe that all sex before marriage is immoral while others believe they can have multiple wives. It’s too subjective and it is unfair to impose one’s morals upon someone else. If a parent is uncomfortable with the existence of these sexuality demonstrations, maybe they should talk to their young adult who decided to stay and see it. These demonstrations continue because the students encourage it. They are not forced to see anything. I am sure if the students actually believed the demonstrations were morally wrong, they would no longer go to them and the professor would be forced to stop conducting them.

2.     This isn’t appropriate for a class – There are better outlets for this, i.e. Porn.

Pornography is obviously not the best way to learn anything of value. It is not realistic and shows a skewed view of sexuality. I am not trying to condemn pornography. I am just simply pointing out the obvious: Porn is for entertainment, not for education. We learn things in classes and for the most part, we trust that what we learn in college courses is correct so why can’t one learn about various kinds of sexuality in a college course? Sexuality is a valid topic of study. Pushing the issue aside and allowing the sole outlets for the study of sexuality to be pornography, Hollywood and the one or two vague, and often incorrect, required health classes in middle and high school are not sufficient ways to learn about and study human sexuality.

3.     Where is my tuition money going?!

This argument actually made me pause and think for a minute. According to his personal statement, Professor Bailey states: “I arrange them [the demonstrations] at considerable investment of my time, for which I receive no compensation from Northwestern University.” Someone has argued to me that tuition indirectly paid for the demonstration because the money presumably came from Professor Bailey’s salary. I personally think that this is a stretch, but for the sake of the argument, I am willing to think about it: Not every person who pays tuition to Northwestern University would agree to or want their tuition money to go to something like this. But then, I thought about tax money. Do we as a people really know where all of our tax money goes? Maybe not, but we do know one place where our money is being funneled into: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the “non-war” in Libya. I think it is pretty safe to say that the country as a whole does not agree with these foreign military excursions and yet, our money is being used to fund them. What is the difference between these two instances? In both instances, there are people who are for and against the events in question and the events are both very controversial. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but how can someone be this upset with a professor at Northwestern University for allocating money to this sexuality demonstration, which bothers the sensibilities of some individuals when our government allocates our tax money to fund wars in which thousands have died?

My Sexuality Textbook

I am taking a Psychology of Human Sexuality course this semester, which I love. I really like the people that I’ve been acquainted with and I really like the professor. And originally, I really liked the main textbook for the course (“Our Sexuality”). Actually, I had been just telling a friend of mine how much I liked the textbook when I turned to the chapter about gender. That’s when my expectations were smashed. My first hint that I was going to be extremely angry in less than no time was the book’s definition of “sex”. The book defines sex as one’s “biological maleness or femaleness”. Basically, this means sex is the physical/biological parts of an individual that allow the individual to be put into one of two categories by society. What is so confusing about the book’s use of this problematic definition is that in just a few pages, the book starts to discuss intersex individuals. So why, dear textbook, would you define ‘sex’ as only having two options when obviously you acknowledge that this is not the case? For those who do not know, an intersex individual is someone whose sex does not fit within the socially acknowledged categories of “male” or “female”. An intersex individual is born with physically ambiguous internal and/or external sex characteristics, which do not allow society to shove them into either box. Causes for this could be genetic or hormonal. This is (or should serve as) testimony that the idea of sex as one’s concrete male/female destiny is faulty.  Obviously, there is more than two sexes in existence and obviously, sex is not as concrete as most people assume it is. Also, the book uses the word “hermaphrodite” to describe intersex individuals. The word “hermaphrodite” is a outdated and offensive. Don’t use it. I don’t care how ‘scientific’ it is and how much it falls in line with the biomedical model. Seriously, just don’t use it. Defining someone solely based on their genitals is not appropriate or polite for that matter. I don’t go around calling men “Penis” as if that is the only thing that defines them. 


But, oh wait, this book doesn’t stop there. When I start reading the section entitled “Transsexualism and Transgenderism,” I wanted to throw the book across the room. The book says there are three kinds of transgendered individuals: androphilic men, gynephilic men and gynephilic women. According to the book, an androphilic man is a man who cross-dresses either to attract heterosexual men or to perform as a drag queen. A gynephilic man has urges to become a woman, but is perfectly happy living a heteronormative life with his wife and white picket fence as long as he is allowed to dress up as a woman when the urge strikes him. And a gynephilic woman “manifests masculine qualities” (Crooks and Baur, 130). Now, time to unpack all this nonsense. First of all, a trans man is NOT a woman and a trans woman is NOT a man. Secondly, these categories are absolute nonsense! Trans women do not dress up to attract, seduce or trap heterosexual men! Spreading beliefs like these is criminal and fatal to trans individuals. So many people are abused and killed because of ignorant beliefs like these. Also part time transgenderism does not exist. Dear textbook, I think you are confused. A man who dresses like a woman infrequently or frequently is a cross-dresser (Also, dear textbook, the word “transvestite” is problematic. Please don’t use it. Thank you.). A trans woman is a WOMAN, not a man who is a part-time woman. And a trans man is a man, not a woman with “masculine qualities”. And to put icing on the cake, the book quotes John Goodrum, who says that transgendered people “to varying degrees, ‘transgress’ cultural norms as to what a man or woman ‘should be’”. I looked up the word ‘transgress’ in a thesaurus and I found the words: breach, infringe, misbehave, violate and err. Needless to say, transgress has a negative connotation. Gender variant individuals are not transgressing anything. It is these exclusionary societal norms that are transgressing the rights of its members. 


By the way, this is not an ancient book. It was copyrighted in 2010. This book highlights what troubles me about sex education and the misinformation that is being put out there. It is the duty of authors, instructors and scientists to present correct information. They need to be more cognizant of the information they disseminate and the effects it can have. 


My friend Erin and a few other individuals put together this great Trans 101 glossary, which I love. It gives clear and comprehensive definitions of terms related to sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. I check this glossary every couple of months to see if it has been updated. Honestly, I think she should write sex education textbooks for people of all ages. I would definitely buy them.