Hubbry Logo
BisexualityBisexualityMain
Open search
Bisexuality
Community hub
Bisexuality
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Bisexuality
Bisexuality
Bisexuality
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Bisexual flag of three solid horizontal bars two fifths pink, one fifth purple, and two fifths blue.
Bisexual flag, designed by Michael Page in 1998
Sexual orientation
Sexual orientations
Related terms
Research
Non-human animals
Related topics

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females.[1][2][3] It may also be defined as the attraction to more than one gender,[4] to people of both the same and different gender, or the attraction to people regardless of their sex or gender identity (pansexuality).[5][6]

The term bisexuality is mainly used for people who experience both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.[1][2][7] Bisexuality is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation along with heterosexuality and homosexuality, all of which exist on the heterosexual–homosexual continuum. A bisexual identity does not necessarily equate to equal sexual attraction to both sexes; commonly, people who have a distinct but not exclusive sexual preference for one sex over the other also identify themselves as bisexual.[8]

Scientists do not know the exact determinants of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[9][10][11] and do not view it as a choice.[9][10][12] Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.[9] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.[3][7][13]

Bisexuality has been observed in various human societies,[14] as well as elsewhere in the animal kingdom,[15][16][17] throughout recorded history. The term bisexuality, like the terms hetero- and homosexuality, was coined in the 19th century by Charles Gilbert Chaddock.[18][19]

Definitions

[edit]

Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior

[edit]
Main articles: Human sexual activity, Sexual identity, and Sexual orientation

Bisexuality is variously defined as romantic or sexual attraction to both males and females,[1][2][3] to more than one gender,[20] or attraction to both people of the same gender and different genders.[21] The American Psychological Association states that "sexual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of both. Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime–different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual."[8][22] Attraction can take numerous forms for bisexuals, such as sexual, romantic, emotional, or physical.[23]

Part of a series on
LGBTQ people
      
Sexual orientation and gender
History
General
Identities
Culture
Rights
Health
Societal attitudes
Issues
Academic fields and discourse
LGBTQ portal

Sexual attraction, behavior, and identity may also be incongruent, as sexual attraction or behavior may not necessarily be consistent with identity. Some individuals identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Others have had homosexual experiences but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.[22] Likewise, self-identified gay or lesbian individuals may occasionally sexually interact with members of the opposite sex but do not identify as bisexual.[22] The terms queer,[24] polysexual,[24] heteroflexible, homoflexible, men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women may also be used to describe sexual identity or identify sexual behavior.[25]

Some sources state that bisexuality encompasses romantic or sexual attraction to all gender identities or that it is romantic or sexual attraction to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender, equating it to or rendering it interchangeable with pansexuality.[5][6] The concept of pansexuality deliberately rejects the gender binary, the "notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations",[6] as pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women.[5][6] Sometimes the phrase bisexual umbrella, or bisexual community, is used to describe any non-monosexual behaviors, attractions, and identities, usually for purposes of collective action and challenging monosexist cultural assumptions.[26] The term "bisexual community" includes those who identify as bisexual, pansexual/omnisexual, biromantic, polysexual, or sexually fluid.[27][28]

The bisexual activist Robyn Ochs defines bisexuality as "the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree."[29]

According to Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, Braun (2006):

...the development of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) sexual identity is a complex and often difficult process. Unlike members of other minority groups (e.g., ethnic and racial minorities), most LGB individuals are not raised in a community of similar others from whom they learn about their identity and who reinforce and support that identity. Rather, LGB individuals are often raised in communities that are either ignorant of or openly hostile toward homosexuality.[8]

Bisexuality as a transitional identity has also been examined. In a longitudinal study about sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youths, Rosario et al. "found evidence of both considerable consistency and change in LGB sexual identity over time". Youths who had identified as both gay/lesbian and bisexual prior to baseline were approximately three times more likely to identify as gay/lesbian than as bisexual at subsequent assessments. Of youths who had identified only as bisexual at earlier assessments, 60 to 70 percent continued to thus identify, while approximately 30 to 40 percent assumed a gay/lesbian identity over time. Rosario et al. suggested that "although there were youths who consistently self-identified as bisexual throughout the study, for other youths, a bisexual identity served as a transitional identity to a subsequent gay/lesbian identity."[8]

By contrast, a longitudinal study by Lisa M. Diamond, which followed women identifying as lesbian, bisexual, or unlabeled, found that "more women adopted bisexual/unlabeled identities than relinquished these identities", over a ten-year period. The study also found that "bisexual/unlabeled women had stable overall distributions of same-sex/other-sex attractions".[30] Diamond has also studied male bisexuality, noting that survey research found "almost as many men transitioned at some point from a gay identity to a bisexual, queer or unlabeled one, as did from a bisexual identity to a gay identity."[31][32]

There may also be a difference between sexual and romantic attractions in bisexuals over time. One study found that in the short term bisexual men and women were much more likely to change their sexual behavior than heterosexual or homosexual individuals. Bisexual men were less likely to have a change in romantic attraction but those that did were more likely to have a greater change than in sexual feelings while bisexual women were more likely than bisexual men to have a change in romantic attraction. This suggests that sexual and romantic attraction is not fixed for bisexual individuals and changes over time.[33]

Kinsey scale

[edit]
Main article: Kinsey scale

In the 1940s, the zoologist Alfred Kinsey created a scale to measure the continuum of sexual orientation from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Kinsey studied human sexuality and argued that people have the capability of being hetero- or homosexual even if this trait does not present itself in the current circumstances.[34] The Kinsey scale is used to describe a person's sexual experience or response at a given time. It ranges from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual.[35] People who rank anywhere from 2 to 4 are often considered bisexual; they are often not fully one extreme or the other.[36] The sociologists Martin S. Weinberg and Colin J. Williams write that, in principle, people who rank anywhere from one to five could be considered bisexual.[37]

Psychologist Jim McKnight writes that while the idea that bisexuality is a form of sexual orientation intermediate between homosexuality and heterosexuality is implicit in the Kinsey scale, that conception has been "severely challenged" since the publication of Homosexualities (1978), by Weinberg and the psychologist Alan P. Bell.[38]

Criticism

[edit]

The Kinsey scale is criticized for various reasons. One of the main reasons is the inverse relation in attraction to males and females that the Kinsey scale represents. The Kinsey scale implies that having a higher level attraction to one gender results in less attraction to the other, which some studies do not support.[39] This aspect of the Kinsey scale can impact the results of studies that utilize the scale, as there is a biological difference between bisexuals and gay people.[40]

Other scales

[edit]
Main article: Scales of sexual orientation
Part of a series on
Bisexuality topics
      
Sexual identities
Studies
Attitudes, slang and discrimination
Community and literature
Lists
See also
LGBTQ portal
  • Klein Sexual Orientation Grid
    • A more descriptive orientation grid that takes into account: Sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, lifestyle preference, and self-identification. It also has different measures for certain variables and is not binary by design.
  • Shively Scale
    • Measures physical and affectional attraction on two separate scales.
  • Sell Assessment of Sexual Orientation
    • Measures sexual attraction, sexual orientation identity, and sexual behavior and reports the extent of all of those factors.
  • Multidimensional Scale of Sexuality (MSS)
    • Uses nine categories to categorize bisexuality. These categories are evaluated on sexual behavior, sexual attraction, arousal to erotic material, emotional factors, and sexual dreams and fantasies. The combined answers to all of these questions make up the score.

Demographics and prevalence

[edit]
Main article: Demographics of sexual orientation

Scientific estimates as to the prevalence of bisexuality have varied from 0.7 to 8 percent. The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, published in 1993, concluded that 5 percent of men and 3 percent of women considered themselves bisexual, while 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women considered themselves homosexual.[41]

A 2002 survey in the United States by the National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else". The same study found that 2.8 percent of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3 percent homosexual, and 3.8 percent as "something else".[42] In 2007, an article in the Health section of The New York Times stated that "1.5 percent of American women and 1.7 percent of American men identify themselves [as] bisexual."[43] Also in 2007, it was reported that 14.4 percent of young US women identified themselves as "not strictly heterosexual", with 5.6 percent of the men identifying as gay or bisexual.[44] A study in the journal Biological Psychology in 2011 reported that there were men who identify themselves as bisexuals and who were aroused by both men and women.[45] In the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans' sexual orientation, the NHIS reported in July 2014 that only 0.7 percent of Americans identify as bisexual.[46]

A collection of recent Western surveys finds that about 10% of women and 4% of men identify as mostly heterosexual, 1% of women and 0.5% of men as bisexual, and 0.4% of women and 0.5% of men as mostly homosexual.[3]: 55 

Across cultures, there is some variance in the prevalence of bisexual behavior,[47] but there is no persuasive evidence that there is much variance in the rate of same-sex attraction.[3] The World Health Organization estimates a worldwide prevalence of men who have sex with men between 3 and 16%, many of whom have sex with women as well.[48]

A YouGov survey found that the proportion of young adults living in the United Kingdom identifying as bisexual surged 14 percentage points from 2015 to 2019.[49]

Studies, theories and social responses

[edit]
Main articles: Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation
Further information: Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation and Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual orientation.[9][10][11] Although scientists favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation,[9] they do not believe that the development of sexual orientation is the result of any one factor. They generally believe that it is determined by a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors, and is shaped at an early age.[1][10][11] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.[3] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role with regard to sexual orientation.[50] Most scientists do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at will.[9][10][12]

In 2000, American Psychiatric Association stated: "To date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."[51] Research into how sexual orientation may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.[52]

Magnus Hirschfeld argued that adult sexual orientation can be explained in terms of the bisexual nature of the developing fetus: he believed that in every embryo there is one rudimentary neutral center for attraction to males and another for attraction to females. In most fetuses, the center for attraction to the opposite sex developed while the center for attraction to the same sex regressed, but in fetuses that became homosexual, the reverse occurred. Simon LeVay has criticized Hirschfeld's theory of an early bisexual stage of development, calling it confusing; LeVay maintains that Hirschfeld failed to distinguish between saying that the brain is sexually undifferentiated at an early stage of development and saying that an individual actually experiences sexual attraction to both men and women. According to LeVay, Hirschfeld believed that in most bisexual people the strength of attraction to the same sex was relatively low, and that it was therefore possible to restrain its development in young people, something Hirschfeld supported.[53]

Hirschfeld created a ten-point scale to measure the strength of sexual desire, with the direction of desire being represented by the letters A (for heterosexuality), B (for homosexuality), and A + B (for bisexuality). On this scale, someone who was A3, B9 would be weakly attracted to the opposite sex and very strongly attracted to the same sex, an A0, B0 would be asexual, and an A10, B10 would be very attracted to both sexes. LeVay compares Hirschfeld's scale to that developed by Kinsey decades later.[54]

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that every human being is bisexual in the sense of incorporating general attributes of both sexes. In his view, this was true anatomically and therefore also psychologically, with sexual attraction to both sexes being an aspect of this psychological bisexuality. Freud believed that in the course of sexual development the masculine side of this bisexual disposition would normally become dominant in men and the feminine side in women, but that all adults still have desires derived from both the masculine and the feminine sides of their natures. Freud did not claim that everyone is bisexual in the sense of feeling the same level of sexual attraction to men and women. Freud's belief in innate bisexuality was rejected by Sándor Radó in 1940 and, following Radó, by many later psychoanalysts. Radó argued that there is no biological bisexuality in humans.[55]

Alan P. Bell, Martin S. Weinberg, and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith reported in Sexual Preference (1981) that sexual preference was much less strongly connected with pre-adult sexual feelings among bisexuals than it was among heterosexuals and homosexuals. Based on this and other findings, they suggested that bisexuality is more influenced by social and sexual learning than is exclusive homosexuality.[56] Letitia Anne Peplau et al. wrote that while Bell et al.'s view "sounds plausible, it has not been tested explicitly and seems at odds with available evidence".[57]

Human bisexuality has mainly been studied alongside homosexuality. Van Wyk and Geist argue that this is a problem for sexuality research because the few studies that have observed bisexuals separately have found that bisexuals are often different from both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Furthermore, bisexuality does not always represent a halfway point between the dichotomy. Research indicates that bisexuality is influenced by biological, cognitive and cultural variables in interaction, and this leads to different types of bisexuality.[47]

In the current debate around influences on sexual orientation, biological explanations have been questioned by social scientists, particularly by feminists who encourage women to make conscious decisions about their life and sexuality. A difference in attitude between homosexual men and women has also been reported, with men more likely to regard their sexuality as biological, "reflecting the universal male experience in this culture, not the complexities of the lesbian world." There is also evidence that women's sexuality may be more strongly affected by cultural and contextual factors.[58]

American academic Camille Paglia has promoted bisexuality as an ideal.[59] American Harvard professor Marjorie Garber made an academic case for bisexuality with her 1995 book Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, in which she argued that most people would be bisexual if not for repression and other factors such as lack of sexual opportunity.[60]

Brain structure and chromosomes

[edit]

LeVay's (1991) examination at autopsy of 18 homosexual men, 1 bisexual man, 16 presumably heterosexual men and 6 presumably heterosexual women found that the INAH 3 nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus of homosexual men was smaller than that of heterosexual men and closer in size of heterosexual women. Although grouped with homosexuals, the INAH 3 size of the one bisexual subject was similar to that of the heterosexual men.[47]

Some evidence supports the concept of biological precursors of bisexual orientation in genetic males. According to John Money (1988), genetic males with an extra Y chromosome are more likely to be bisexual, paraphilic and impulsive.[47]

Evolutionary theory

[edit]

Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that same-sex attraction does not have adaptive value because it has no association with potential reproductive success. Instead, bisexuality can be due to normal variation in brain plasticity. More recently, it has been suggested that same-sex alliances may have helped males climb the social hierarchy giving access to females and reproductive opportunities. Same-sex allies could have helped females to move to the safer and resource richer center of the group, which increased their chances of raising their offspring successfully.[61] Likewise, Barron and Hare suggest that same-sex attraction is a spandrel of prosocial traits, which has been consistently selected among humans over time. These prosocial traits include social affiliation, communication, integration, as well as reduced reactive aggression among members of the same sex.[62]

David Buss criticized the alliance hypothesis, stating that there is no evidence that most young men in most cultures use sexual behavior to establish alliances; instead, the norm is for same-sex alliances to not be accompanied by any sexual activity.[63] Additionally, he states that there is no evidence that men who engage in bisexual behavior do better than other men at forming alliances or ascending in status.[63] Barron and Hare state that there are ethnographic examples of same-sex activity being used to strengthen social bonds among males and females.[62]

Brendan Zietsch of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research proposes the alternative theory that men exhibiting female traits become more attractive to females and are thus more likely to mate, provided the genes involved do not drive them to complete rejection of heterosexuality.[64] Barron and Hare concur and argue that this is one of the reasons why bisexuality is more common than exclusive homosexuality among animal populations, including human populations. However, this is underreported due to enforced binary dichotomies in previous research and cultural factors.[62]

Also, in a 2008 study, its authors stated that "There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency." They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them" and their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population."[65] Barron and Hare say that this finding is only shown in Western European societies, with said finding being weakly supported in "other populations or cultures".[62]

Masculinization

[edit]

Masculinization of women and hypermasculinization of men has been a central theme in sexual orientation research. There are several studies suggesting that bisexuals have a high degree of masculinization. LaTorre and Wendenberg (1983) found differing personality characteristics for bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual women. Bisexuals were found to have fewer personal insecurities than heterosexuals and homosexuals. This finding described bisexuals as self-assured and less likely to have mental instabilities. The confidence of a secure identity consistently translated to more masculinity than other subjects. This study did not explore societal norms, prejudices, or the feminization of homosexual males.[47]

In a research comparison, published in the Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, women usually have a better hearing sensitivity than males, assumed by researchers as a genetic disposition connected to child bearing. Homosexual and bisexual women have been found to have a hypersensitivity to sound in comparison to heterosexual women, suggesting a genetic disposition to not tolerate high pitched tones. While heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual men have been found to exhibit similar patterns of hearing, there was a notable differential in a sub-group of males identified as hyperfeminized homosexual males who exhibited test results similar to heterosexual women.[66]

Prenatal hormones

[edit]

The prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation suggests that people who are exposed to excess levels of sex hormones have masculinized brains and show increased homosexuality or bisexuality. Studies providing evidence for the masculinization of the brain have, however, not been conducted to date. Research on special conditions such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) indicate that prenatal exposure to, respectively, excess testosterone and estrogens are associated with female–female sex fantasies in adults. Both effects are associated with bisexuality rather than homosexuality.[58]

There is research evidence that the digit ratio of the length of the 2nd and 4th digits (index finger and ring finger) is somewhat negatively related to prenatal testosterone and positively to estrogen. Studies measuring the fingers found a statistically significant skew in the 2D:4D ratio (long ring finger) towards homosexuality with an even lower ratio in bisexuals. It is suggested that exposure to high prenatal testosterone and low prenatal estrogen concentrations is one cause of homosexuality whereas exposure to very high testosterone levels may be associated with bisexuality. Because testosterone in general is important for sexual differentiation, this view offers an alternative to the suggestion that male homosexuality is genetic.[67]

The prenatal hormonal theory suggests that a homosexual orientation results from exposure to excessive testosterone causing an over-masculinized brain. This is contradictory to another hypothesis that homosexual preferences may be due to a feminized brain in males. However, it has also been suggested that homosexuality may be due to high prenatal levels of unbound testosterone that results from a lack of receptors at particular brain sites. Therefore, the brain could be feminized while other features, such as the 2D:4D ratio could be over-masculinized.[61]

Sex drive

[edit]

Van Wyk and Geist summarized several studies comparing bisexuals with hetero- or homosexuals that have indicated that bisexuals have higher rates of sexual activity, fantasy, or erotic interest. These studies found that male and female bisexuals had more heterosexual fantasy than heterosexuals or homosexuals; that bisexual men had more sexual activities with women than did heterosexual men, and that they masturbated more but had fewer happy marriages than heterosexuals; that bisexual women had more orgasms per week and they described them as stronger than those of hetero- or homosexual women; and that bisexual women became heterosexually active earlier, masturbated and enjoyed masturbation more, and were more experienced in different types of heterosexual contact.[47]

Research suggests that, for most women, high sex drive is associated with increased sexual attraction to both women and men. For men, however, high sex drive is associated with increased attraction to one sex or the other, but not to both, depending on sexual orientation.[68] Similarly for most bisexual women, high sex drive is associated with increased sexual attraction to both women and men; while for bisexual men, high sex drive is associated with increased attraction to one sex, and weakened attraction to the other.[61]

Sociosexuality

[edit]

Richard A. Lippa proposed that there exist two dimensions of sexual orientation: a gender typicality dimension, and a monosexuality dimension. With the gender typicality dimension being associated with the heterosexual-homosexual distinction, while the sociosexuality dimension has many behavioral effects. He proposes someone who would be at any point in the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum will become bisexual if they are high on the sociosexuality dimension. This dimension being associated with higher sociosexuality, higher neuroticism, lower agreeableness, lower honesty-humility, higher openness to experience, and a minor degree of gender nonconformity.[69] He proposes this as explaining phenomena such as increased juvenile delinquency among bisexuals,[70] increased mental health issues and substance use disorder among bisexuals,[71] and increased dark triad traits among bisexual women.[72] Critics of this theory have described elements observed as coming from experiences of biphobia,[69] but Lippa counters that these phenomena are present even among heterosexual identifying people with some same sex attraction, who would likely be heterosexual passing.[69][73]

Community

[edit]
Main article: Bisexual community
Participants representing Bi Pride in the 1993 March on Washington

General social impacts

[edit]
Bisexual people representing Bi Pride in London 2016

The bisexual community (also known as the bisexual/pansexual, bi/pan/fluid, or non-monosexual community) includes members of the LGBTQ community who identify as bisexual, pansexual or fluid.[74] Because some bisexual people do not feel that they fit into either the gay or the heterosexual world, and because they have a tendency to be "invisible" in public, some bisexual persons are committed to forming their own communities, culture, and political movements. Some who identify as bisexual may merge themselves into either homosexual or heterosexual society. Other bisexual people see this merging as enforced rather than voluntary; bisexual people can face exclusion from both homosexual and heterosexual society on coming out.[75] Psychologist Beth Firestein states that bisexuals tend to internalize social tensions related to their choice of partners[76] and feel pressured to label themselves as homosexuals instead of occupying the difficult middle ground where attraction to people of both sexes would defy society's value on monogamy.[76] These social tensions and pressure may affect bisexuals' mental health, and specific therapy methods have been developed for bisexuals to address this concern.[76]

Bisexual people also often hide their actual orientation due to societal pressures, a phenomenon colloquially called "being closeted".[77] In the U.S., a 2013 Pew survey showed that 28% of bisexuals said that "all or most of the important people in their life are aware that they are LGBT" compared to 77% of gay men and 71% of lesbians. Furthermore, when broken down by gender, only 12% of bisexual men said that they were "out" vs. 33% of bisexual women.[78]

Perceptions and discrimination

[edit]
Main articles: Biphobia and Bisexual erasure

Like people of other LGBTQ sexualities, bisexuals often face discrimination. In addition to the discrimination associated with homophobia, bisexuals frequently contend with discrimination from gay men, lesbians, and straight society around the word bisexual and bisexual identity itself.[79][80][81] The belief that everyone is bisexual (especially women as opposed to men),[82][83] or that bisexuality does not exist as a unique identity, is common.[79][84] This stems from two views: In the heterosexist view, people are presumed to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and it is sometimes reasoned that a bisexual person is simply a heterosexual person who is sexually experimenting.[81] In the monosexist view, it is believed that people cannot be bisexual unless they are equally sexually attracted to both sexes, regulating sexual orientation to being about the sex or gender one prefers.[79][80] In this view, people are either exclusively homosexual (gay/lesbian) or exclusively heterosexual (straight),[79] closeted homosexual people who wish to appear heterosexual,[85] or heterosexuals who are experimenting with their sexuality.[81][86] Assertions that one cannot be bisexual unless equally sexually attracted to both sexes, however, are disputed by various researchers, who have reported bisexuality to fall on a continuum, like sexuality in general.[8][43]

Male bisexuality is particularly presumed to be non-existent,[83] with sexual fluidity studies adding to the debate. In 2005, researchers Gerulf Rieger, Meredith L. Chivers, and J. Michael Bailey used penile plethysmography to measure the arousal of self-identified bisexual men to pornography involving only men and pornography involving only women. Participants were recruited via advertisements in gay-oriented magazines and an alternative paper. They found that the self-identified bisexual men in their sample had genital arousal patterns similar to either homosexual or heterosexual men. The authors concluded that "in terms of behavior and identity, bisexual men clearly exist", but that male bisexuality had not been shown to exist with respect to arousal or attraction.[87] Some researchers hold that the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude to capture the richness (erotic sensations, affection, admiration) that constitutes sexual attraction.[43] The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the study and The New York Times coverage of it flawed and biphobic.[88]

The American Institute of Bisexuality stated that Bailey's study was misinterpreted and misreported by both The New York Times and its critics.[89] In 2011, Bailey and other researchers reported that among men with a history of several romantic and sexual relationships with members of both sexes, high levels of sexual arousal were found in response to both male and female sexual imagery.[90][91] The subjects were recruited from a Craigslist group for men seeking intimacy with both members of a heterosexual couple. The authors said that this change in recruitment strategy was an important difference, but it may not have been a representative sample of bisexual-identified men. They concluded that "bisexual-identified men with bisexual arousal patterns do indeed exist", but could not establish whether such a pattern is typical of bisexual-identified men in general.[91][92]

Bisexual erasure (or bisexual invisibility) is the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or reexplain evidence of bisexuality in culture, history, academia, news media and other primary sources.[79][80][93] In its most extreme form, bisexual erasure includes denying that bisexuality exists.[79][93] It is often a manifestation of biphobia,[79][80][93] although it does not necessarily involve overt antagonism.

There is increasing inclusion and visibility of bisexuals, particularly in the LGBTQ community.[94][95] American psychologist Beth Firestone writes that since she wrote her first book on bisexuality, in 1996, "bisexuality has gained visibility, although progress is uneven and awareness of bisexuality is still minimal or absent in many of the more remote regions of our country and internationally."[96]

Symbols and observances

[edit]
Main article: LGBTQ symbols
The bisexual pride flag
The biangles symbol of bisexuality, designed by artist Liz Nania
The double crescent moon bisexuality symbol, designed by Vivian Wagner

A common symbol of the bisexual community is the bisexual flag, designed by Michael Page and unveiled in 1998, which has a deep pink stripe at the top for homosexuality, a blue one on the bottom for heterosexuality, and a purple one – blending the pink and blue – in the middle to represent bisexuality.[97]

Another symbol with a similarly symbolic color scheme is the biangles symbol of bisexuality, a pair of overlapping pink and blue triangles, forming lavender where they intersect. This design is an expansion on the pink triangle, a well-known symbol for the gay community.[98] The biangles symbol was designed by artist Liz Nania as she co-organized a bisexual contingent for the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1987.[99][100] However, some bisexual individuals object to the use of a pink triangle, as it was a symbol that Adolf Hitler's regime used to tag and persecute homosexuals. In response, a double crescent moon symbol was devised by Vivian Wagner in 1998.[101][102] This symbol is common in Germany and surrounding countries.[102]

Venus flanked by Venus and Mars symbols for a bisexual woman
Mars flanked by Venus and Mars symbols for a bisexual man

Celebrate Bisexuality Day (also called Bisexual Pride Day, Bi Visibility Day, CBD, Bisexual Pride and Bi Visibility Day, and Bisexuality+ Day) is observed annually on September 23[103] to recognize and celebrate bisexual people, the bisexual community, and the history of bisexuality.[104]

In BDSM

[edit]

In Steve Lenius' original 2001 paper, he explored the acceptance of bisexuality in a supposedly pansexual BDSM community. The reasoning behind this is that "coming-out" had become primarily the territory of the gay and lesbian, with bisexuals feeling the push to be one or the other (and being right only half the time either way). What he found in 2001, was that people in BDSM were open to discussion about the topic of bisexuality and pansexuality and all controversies they bring to the table, but personal biases and issues stood in the way of actively using such labels. A decade later, Lenius (2011) looked back on his study and considered if anything has changed. He concluded that the standing of bisexuals in the BDSM and kink community was unchanged, and believed that positive shifts in attitude were moderated by society's changing views towards different sexualities and orientations. But Lenius (2011) does emphasize that the pansexual promoting BDSM community helped advance greater acceptance of alternative sexualities.[105][106]

Brandy Lin Simula (2012), on the other hand, argues that BDSM actively resists gender conforming and identified three different types of BDSM bisexuality: gender-switching, gender-based styles (taking on a different gendered style depending on gender of partner when playing), and rejection of gender (resisting the idea that gender matters in their play partners). Simula (2012) explains that practitioners of BDSM routinely challenge our concepts of sexuality by pushing the limits on pre-existing ideas of sexual orientation and gender norms. For some, BDSM and kink provides a platform in creating identities that are fluid, ever-changing.[107]

In feminism

[edit]

Feminist positions on bisexuality range greatly, from acceptance of bisexuality as a feminist issue to rejection of bisexuality as reactionary and anti-feminist backlash to lesbian feminism.[108] A number of women who were at one time involved in lesbian-feminist activism have since come out as bisexual after realizing their attractions to men. A widely studied example of lesbian-bisexual conflict in feminism was the Northampton Pride March in Massachusetts during the years between 1989 and 1993, where many feminists involved debated over whether bisexuals should be included and whether or not bisexuality was compatible with feminism.[109]

Common lesbian-feminist critiques leveled at bisexuality were that bisexuality was anti-feminist, that bisexuality was a form of false consciousness, and that bisexual women who pursue relationships with men were "deluded and desperate." Tensions between bisexual feminists and lesbian feminists have eased since the 1990s, as bisexual women have become more accepted in the feminist community,[110] but some lesbian feminists such as Julie Bindel are still critical of bisexuality. Bindel has described female bisexuality as a "fashionable trend" being promoted due to "sexual hedonism" and broached the question of whether bisexuality even exists.[111] She has also made tongue-in-cheek comparisons of bisexuals to cat fanciers and devil worshippers.[112] Sheila Jeffreys writes in The Lesbian Heresy that while many feminists are comfortable working alongside gay men, they are uncomfortable interacting with bisexual men. Jeffreys states that while gay men are unlikely to sexually harass women, bisexual men are just as likely to be bothersome to women as heterosexual men.[113]

Donna Haraway was the inspiration and genesis for cyberfeminism with her 1985 essay "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century" which was reprinted in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (1991). Haraway's essay states that the cyborg "has no truck with bisexuality, pre-oedipal symbiosis, unalienated labor, or other seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all powers of the parts into a higher unity."[114]

A bisexual woman filed a lawsuit against the magazine Common Lives/Lesbian Lives, alleging discrimination against bisexuals when her submission was not published.[115]

History

[edit]
Main article: History of bisexuality
See also: Bisexuality in the United States, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, and Homosexuality in ancient Rome
Shudo (Japanese pederasty): a young male entertains an older male lover, covering his eyes while surreptitiously kissing a female servant.
Young man and adolescent engaging in intercrural sex, fragment of a black-figure Attic cup, 550 BC–525 BC, Louvre

Ancient Greeks and Romans did not associate sexual relations with well-defined labels, as modern Western society does. Men who had male lovers were not identified as homosexual, and may have had wives or other female lovers.

Ancient Greek religious texts, reflecting cultural practices, incorporated bisexual themes. The subtexts varied, from the mystical to the didactic.[116] Spartans thought that love and erotic relationships between experienced and novice soldiers would solidify combat loyalty and unit cohesion, and encourage heroic tactics as men vied to impress their lovers. Once the younger soldiers reached maturity, the relationship was supposed to become non-sexual, but it is not clear how strictly this was followed. There was some stigma attached to young men who continued their relationships with their mentors into adulthood.[116] For example, Aristophanes calls them euryprôktoi, meaning 'wide arses', and depicts them like women.[116]

Similarly, in ancient Rome, gender did not determine whether a sexual partner was acceptable, as long as a man's enjoyment did not encroach on another man's integrity. It was socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role.[117] The morality of the behavior depended on the social standing of the partner, not gender per se. Both women and young men were considered normal objects of desire, but outside marriage a man was supposed to act on his desires only with slaves, prostitutes (who were often slaves), and the infames. It was immoral to have sex with another freeborn man's wife, his marriageable daughter, his underage son, or with the man himself; sexual use of another man's slave was subject to the owner's permission. Lack of self-control, including in managing one's sex life, indicated that a man was incapable of governing others; too much indulgence in "low sensual pleasure" threatened to erode the elite male's identity as a cultured person.[118]

In early modern times, John Hoyle was an Englishman known for his bisexuality.[119] Alfred Kinsey conducted the first large surveys of homosexual behavior in the United States during the 1940s. The results shocked the readers of his day because they made same-sex behavior and attractions seem so common.[3] His 1948 work Sexual Behavior in the Human Male stated that among men "nearly half (46%) of the population engages in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or reacts to persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives" and that "37% of the total male population has at least some overt homosexual experience to the point of orgasm since the onset of adolescence."[120] Kinsey himself disliked the use of the term bisexual to describe individuals who engage in sexual activity with both males and females, preferring to use bisexual in its original, biological sense as hermaphroditic, stating, "Until it is demonstrated [that] taste in a sexual relation is dependent upon the individual containing within his anatomy both male and female structures, or male and female physiological capacities, it is unfortunate to call such individuals bisexual."[79][120] Although more recent researchers believe that Kinsey overestimated the rate of same-sex attraction,[3][13]: 9 [121]: 147  his work is considered pioneering and some of the most well known sex research of all time.[121]: 29 

Media

[edit]
Main article: Media portrayals of bisexuality

Bisexuality tends to be associated with negative media portrayals; references are sometimes made to stereotypes or mental disorders. In an article regarding the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain, sex educator Amy Andre argued that in films, bisexuals are often depicted negatively:[122]

I like movies where bisexuals come out to each other together and fall in love, because these tend to be so few and far between; the most recent example would be 2002's lovely romantic comedy, Kissing Jessica Stein. Most movies with bi characters paint a stereotypical picture.... The bi love interest is usually deceptive (Mulholland Drive), over-sexed (Sex Monster), unfaithful (High Art), and fickle (Three of Hearts), and might even be a serial killer, like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. In other words, the bisexual is always the cause of the conflict in the film.

— Amy Andre, American Sexuality Magazine

Using a content analysis of more than 170 articles written between 2001 and 2006, sociologist Richard N. Pitt Jr. concluded that the media pathologized black bisexual men's behavior while either ignoring or sympathizing with white bisexual men's similar actions. He argued that the black bisexual man is often described as a duplicitous heterosexual man spreading the HIV/AIDS virus. Alternatively, the white bisexual man is often described in pitying language as a victimized homosexual man forced into the closet by the heterosexist society around him.[123]

Film

[edit]
Angelina Jolie is an openly bisexual American actress.[124]

In 1914 the first documented appearance of bisexual characters (female and male) in an American motion picture occurred in A Florida Enchantment, by Sidney Drew.[125] However, under the censorship required by the Hays Code, the word bisexual could not be mentioned, and almost no bisexual characters appeared in American film from 1934 until 1968.[125]

Notable and varying portrayals of bisexuality can be found in mainstream movies such as Something for Everyone (1970), Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971), The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), The Fourth Man (1983), Henry & June (1990), Basic Instinct (1992), Showgirls (1995), The Pillow Book (1996), Chasing Amy (1997), Velvet Goldmine (1998), Kissing Jessica Stein (2001), Mulholland Drive (2001), Frida (2002), The Rules of Attraction (2002), Alexander (2004), Brokeback Mountain (2005), Black Swan (2010), and Call Me by Your Name (2017).

Literature

[edit]

Virginia Woolf's Orlando: A Biography (1928) is an early example of bisexuality in literature. The story, of a man who changes into a woman without a second thought, was based on the life of Woolf's lover Vita Sackville-West. Woolf used the gender switch to avoid the book being banned for homosexual content. The pronouns switch from male to female as Orlando's gender changes. Woolf's lack of definite pronouns allows for ambiguity and lack of emphasis on gender labels.[126] Her 1925 book Mrs Dalloway focused on a bisexual man and a bisexual woman in sexually unfulfilled heterosexual marriages in later life. Following Sackille-West's death, her son Nigel Nicolson published Portrait of a Marriage, one of her diaries recounting her affair with a woman during her marriage to Harold Nicolson. Other early examples include works of D. H. Lawrence, such as Women in Love (1920), and Colette's Claudine (1900–1903) series.

The main character in Patrick White's novel, The Twyborn Affair (1979), is bisexual. Contemporary novelist Bret Easton Ellis' novels, such as Less than Zero (1985) and The Rules of Attraction (1987) frequently feature bisexual male characters; this "casual approach" to bisexual characters recurs throughout Ellis' work.[127]

Music

[edit]

Rock musician David Bowie famously declared himself bisexual in an interview with Melody Maker in January 1972, a move coinciding with the first shots in his campaign for stardom as Ziggy Stardust.[128] In a September 1976 interview with Playboy, Bowie said, "It's true—I am a bisexual. But I can't deny that I've used that fact very well. I suppose it's the best thing that ever happened to me."[129] In a 1983 interview, he said it was "the biggest mistake I ever made",[130][131] elaborating in 2002 he explained "I don't think it was a mistake in Europe, but it was a lot tougher in America. I had no problem with people knowing I was bisexual. But I had no inclination to hold any banners or be a representative of any group of people. I knew what I wanted to be, which was a songwriter and a performer [...] America is a very puritanical place, and I think it stood in the way of so much I wanted to do."[132]

Queen singer Freddie Mercury was also open about his bisexuality, though he did not publicly discuss his relationships.[133]

In 1995, Jill Sobule sang about bi-curiosity in her song "I Kissed a Girl", with a video that alternated images of Sobule and a boyfriend along with images of her with a girlfriend. Another song with the same name by Katy Perry also hints at the same theme. Some activists, researchers, and general listeners suggest Perry's song merely reinforces the stereotype of bisexuals experimenting and of bisexuality not being a real sexual preference.[134][135] Lady Gaga has also stated that she is bisexual,[136] and has acknowledged that her song "Poker Face" is about fantasizing about a woman while being with a man.[137]

Brian Molko, lead singer of Placebo, is openly bisexual.[138] Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong has also identified himself as bisexual, saying in a 1995 interview with The Advocate, "I think I've always been bisexual. I mean, it's something that I've always been interested in. I think people are born bisexual, and it's just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of 'Oh, I can't.' They say it's taboo. It's ingrained in our heads that it's bad, when it's not bad at all. It's a very beautiful thing."[139] In 2014, Armstrong discussed songs such as "Coming Clean" stating, "It was a song about questioning myself. There are these other feelings you may have about the same sex, the opposite sex, especially being in Berkeley and San Francisco then. People are acting out what they're feeling: gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever. And that opens up something in society that becomes more acceptable. Now we have gay marriage becoming recognized... I think it's a process of discovery. I was willing to try anything."[140]

Television

[edit]
See also: List of bisexual characters in television

In the Netflix original series Orange is the New Black, the main character, Piper Chapman, played by actress Taylor Schilling, is a bisexual female inmate who is shown having relationships with both men and women. In season one, before entering the prison, Piper is engaged to male fiancé Larry Bloom, played by actor Jason Biggs. Then, upon entering the prison, she reconnects with former lover (and fellow inmate), Alex Vause, played by Laura Prepon.[141][142] Another character who is portrayed as bisexual in the show is an inmate named Lorna Morello, played by actress Yael Stone. She has an intimate relationship with fellow inmate Nicky Nichols, played by Natasha Lyonne, while still yearning for her male "fiance", Christopher MacLaren, played by Stephen O'Reilly.[142]

The FOX television series House features a bisexual female doctor, Remy "Thirteen" Hadley, played by Olivia Wilde, from season four onwards. The same network had earlier aired the television series The O.C., which for a time featured bisexual Alex Kelly (also played by Olivia Wilde), the local rebellious hangout spot's manager, as a love interest of Marissa Cooper.[143] In the HBO drama Oz, Chris Keller was a bisexual serial killer who tortured and raped various men and women.[144]

Beginning with the 2009 season, MTV's The Real World series featured two bisexual characters,[145] Emily Schromm,[146] and Mike Manning.[147]

The Showcase supernatural crime drama, Lost Girl, about creatures called Fae who live secretly among humans, features a bisexual protagonist, Bo,[148] played by Anna Silk. In the story arc she is involved in a love triangle between Dyson, a wolf-shapeshifter (played by Kris Holden-Ried), and Lauren Lewis,[149] a human doctor (played by Zoie Palmer) in servitude to the leader of the Light Fae clan.

In the BBC TV science fiction show Torchwood, several of the main characters appear to have fluid sexuality. Most prominent among these is Captain Jack Harkness, a pansexual who is the lead character and an otherwise conventional science fiction action hero. Within the logic of the show, where characters can also interact with alien species, producers sometimes use the term "omnisexual" to describe him.[150] Jack's ex, Captain John Hart, is also bisexual.[151] Of his female exes, significantly at least one ex-wife and at least one woman with whom he has had a child have been indicated. Some critics draw the conclusion that the series more often shows Jack with men than women.[152] Creator Russell T Davies says one of pitfalls of writing a bisexual character is you "fall into the trap" of "only having them sleep with men." He describes of the show's fourth series, "You'll see the full range of his appetites, in a really properly done way."[153] The preoccupation with bisexuality has been seen by critics as complementary to other aspects of the show's themes. For heterosexual character Gwen Cooper, for whom Jack harbors romantic feelings, the new experiences she confronts at Torchwood, in the form of "affairs and homosexuality and the threat of death", connote not only the Other but a "missing side" to the Self.[154] Under the influence of an alien pheromone, Gwen kisses a woman in Episode 2 of the series. In Episode 1, heterosexual Owen Harper kisses a man to escape a fight when he is about to take the man's girlfriend. Quiet Toshiko Sato is in love with Owen, but has also had brief romantic relationships with a female alien and a male human.

Webseries

[edit]

In October 2009, "A Rose By Any Other Name"[155] was released as a "webisode" series on YouTube. Directed by bisexual rights advocate Kyle Schickner,[156] the plot centers around a lesbian-identified woman who falls in love with a straight man and discovers she is actually bisexual.[157]

Among other animals

[edit]
Main article: Homosexual behavior in animals
See also: Animal sexual behaviour

Some non-human animal species exhibit bisexual behavior.[15][16][17] Examples of mammals that display such behavior include the bonobo, orca, walrus,[158][159] and the bottlenose dolphin.[15][16][17][158][160][161] Examples of birds include some species of gulls and Humboldt penguins. Other examples of bisexual behavior occur among fish and flatworms.[161]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bisexuality

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Bisexuality is a sexual orientation defined by the capacity for emotional, romantic, and/or physical attraction to more than one sex. Empirical studies, including physiological arousal research, provide robust evidence that self-identified bisexual individuals, particularly men, exhibit distinct patterns of response to both male and female stimuli, countering earlier skepticism that bisexuality merely reflects transitional or unstable preferences between exclusive heterosexuality and homosexuality. Population surveys indicate prevalence rates of bisexual identification around 4-5% among U.S. adults, with higher figures—up to 15%—among younger generations like Gen Z, alongside 2-10% reporting same-sex behavior regardless of identity; these patterns suggest both stable orientations and some fluidity, with about 1 in 11 adults shifting identities over time. Biologically, genetic analyses reveal variants associated with bisexual behavior in men correlate positively with reproductive success (e.g., higher offspring numbers) and risk-taking propensity, unlike exclusive same-sex behavior, which shows negative correlations, implying evolutionary advantages under certain conditions. Bisexual individuals often face unique challenges, including elevated risks for mental health disorders, substance use, and poorer physical outcomes compared to heterosexuals or exclusive homosexuals, potentially linked to minority stress and identity invalidation from both mainstream and LGBTQ+ communities.

Definitions and Terminology

Etymology and Historical Usage

The term bisexuality derives from the prefix bi-, meaning "two" from Latin bis and Greek di-, combined with sexuality, rooted in Latin sexus denoting sex or division into sexes. The adjective bisexual first appeared in English around 1793 to describe organisms possessing characteristics of both sexes, such as hermaphroditic plants or animals. In its earliest documented usage, bisexuality referred exclusively to biological phenomena involving dual sexual characteristics, as introduced in 1859 by anatomist Robert Bentley Todd to describe the possession of both male and female physical traits in human development. This biological connotation persisted through the mid-19th century, aligning with emerging anatomical studies of intersex conditions and embryonic development, where "bisexuality" denoted a primordial state of undifferentiated sexual organs before specialization. By the late 19th century, amid the rise of sexology, the term shifted toward denoting sexual attraction to both males and females. The first application in this psychological sense occurred in 1892, when Charles Gilbert Chaddock used bisexual in his English translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis to characterize individuals exhibiting both heterosexual and homosexual inclinations, framing it as a form of psychosexual hermaphroditism. Krafft-Ebing himself had employed bisexuell in the original 1886 German edition to describe mixed sexual perversions, influencing early classifications of human eroticism beyond strict monosexuality. This usage marked a departure from purely anatomical meanings, embedding bisexuality within debates on innate drives and pathology in works by figures like Sigmund Freud, who later invoked it to argue for universal bisexual potential in psychic development.

Contemporary Definitions and Distinctions

Bisexuality is defined in contemporary psychological literature as a sexual orientation involving the capacity for romantic, emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to persons of more than one sex. The American Psychological Association describes bisexual individuals as those with the potential to form attractions and/or relationships to more than one gender, encompassing a spectrum of experiences rather than exclusive preferences. Peer-reviewed definitions emphasize attractions to both male and female categories, distinguishing bisexuality from monosexual orientations by its dual-directed nature. In distinction from heterosexuality, which entails enduring attraction primarily to the opposite sex, and homosexuality, which involves attraction primarily to the same sex, bisexuality is empirically characterized by attractions spanning both sexes, often measured via self-reported patterns or physiological responses in research settings. These distinctions are not always binary in practice, as bisexual attractions may vary in intensity across individuals, with some exhibiting stronger preferences toward one sex without exclusivity; bisexual men often experience attractions to men and women with varying intensity and quality, with self-reports frequently describing differences such as attraction to men feeling more sexual and to women more romantic or emotional. This differs from heteroflexibility, where individuals are mostly heterosexual with occasional same-sex flexibility, typically showing stronger, more consistent attractions to women while same-sex attractions or crushes on men are less frequent, less intense, and often more sexual than romantic. Empirical studies highlight that bisexuals do not consistently occupy an intermediate position between heterosexuals and homosexuals in arousal metrics, underscoring bisexuality as a distinct category rather than a mere midpoint. Contemporary debates differentiate bisexuality from pansexuality, with the latter defined as attraction irrespective of gender or sex, potentially extending to non-binary or transgender individuals without regard for biological sex. Traditional bisexual definitions focus on attraction to two or more genders within a binary framework (male and female), whereas pansexuality explicitly rejects gender as a factor in attraction. However, overlap exists, as some self-identified bisexuals report attractions encompassing all genders, leading researchers to view pansexuality as a subset or semantic variant of bisexuality rather than a fundamentally separate orientation. These distinctions rely heavily on self-identification, with empirical validation challenging due to subjective reporting and cultural influences on terminology.

Biological and Neurological Foundations

Genetic Correlates

Twin studies estimate the broad-sense heritability of same-sex sexual behavior, which encompasses both exclusive same-sex behavior and bisexual behavior, at approximately 30%. This heritability figure derives from analyses of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, indicating a moderate genetic contribution alongside environmental influences, though specific heritability for bisexuality as distinct from exclusive homosexuality remains less precisely quantified due to overlapping phenotypes in datasets. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified polygenic signals associated with same-sex sexual behavior, accounting for 8-25% of variance in males and females combined, but these signals do not localize to a single "bisexuality gene" and show limited predictive power for individuals. A 2024 analysis disentangled bisexual behavior (defined as non-exclusive same-sex activity) from exclusive same-sex behavior, revealing that genetic variants linked to male bisexual behavior positively correlate with reproductive success, including higher offspring counts, unlike variants tied to exclusive same-sex behavior which show negative reproductive correlations. This suggests that alleles predisposing to bisexual patterns may persist evolutionarily due to fitness advantages, potentially through increased mating opportunities across sexes. In males, bisexual behavior-associated genetic variants also correlate with risk-taking propensity, a trait that may enhance reproductive outcomes by promoting boldness in social and sexual contexts, though no such correlation appears in females. Female bisexual behavior, while heritable, exhibits weaker links to reproductive metrics in available data, possibly reflecting sex-specific evolutionary pressures or measurement challenges in self-reported behaviors. Overall, these findings underscore a polygenic architecture where bisexual tendencies differ genetically from exclusive homosexuality, with the former potentially adaptive in population-level dynamics, though environmental and cultural factors modulate expression and confound causal inference.

Arousal Patterns and Physiology

Studies of genital arousal patterns indicate category-specific responses in men, where self-identified bisexual men typically exhibit physiological arousal concordant with either heterosexual or homosexual patterns rather than intermediate bisexual responses. In a 2005 study by Rosenthal, Gorzalka, and Bailey involving 30 heterosexual, 33 bisexual, and 38 homosexual men, penile plethysmography measured genital arousal to male and female erotic stimuli; bisexual men showed either predominantly heterosexual or homosexual arousal profiles, with no distinct bisexual pattern differentiating them from monosexual groups. This finding aligns with broader evidence that male sexual arousal is highly gender-specific, potentially reflecting evolutionary adaptations for mate selection. In contrast, women's genital arousal, measured via vaginal photoplethysmography (VPA) for changes in vaginal pulse amplitude, demonstrates greater non-specificity across orientations. Chivers, Rieger, Latty, and Bailey's 2004 research exposed heterosexual, bisexual, and lesbian women to erotic films; both heterosexual and lesbian women displayed significant VPA responses to both male and female stimuli, though subjective arousal remained orientation-concordant, suggesting a decoupling between physiological and self-reported arousal in females. Bisexual women in subsequent studies, such as Bouchard et al. (2015), endorsed facets of bisexuality (e.g., orientation, fantasy) and showed less differentiated genital responses to gender cues compared to monosexual women, with female stimuli eliciting stronger responses overall, but patterns varying by bisexuality endorsement level. Subjective reports from some bisexual women indicate preferences for sexual experiences with men, attributed to the physical sensations of penile-vaginal penetration, such as thrusting and fullness, which some describe as more intense or reliable for orgasm compared to oral or manual stimulation from women; however, these experiences vary widely, are highly subjective, and drawn from anecdotal accounts in online discussions rather than systematic studies. Pupil dilation serves as a non-invasive physiological indicator of arousal, correlating with autonomic nervous system activation. A 2012 study by Rieger et al. found that men's pupil responses to sexual stimuli were category-specific, mirroring genital patterns, while women's were more bisexual regardless of identity; bisexual men displayed dilation primarily to one sex, often linked to higher self-reported curiosity toward the non-preferred sex rather than equivalent arousal. A 2021 meta-analysis by Imhoff et al. confirmed bisexual men's greater pupil dilation to male stimuli in some contexts but emphasized that overall patterns in men lack robust bisexuality, unlike women who exhibit broader responsiveness. These physiological measures highlight sex differences: male arousal aligns closely with stated orientation in a binary fashion, whereas female patterns allow for more fluidity, potentially influenced by contextual or hormonal factors, though direct causal links remain under investigation. Longitudinal data from Jabbour et al. (2022) on arousal stability over time further showed bisexual individuals reporting greater change in patterns than monosexuals, but genital measures in men persisted as non-bisexual.

Neurological and Hormonal Factors

Studies utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have identified distinct neural activation patterns in bisexual individuals during responses to sexual stimuli. In a 2017 study of women, heterosexual participants exhibited stronger activation in sex-specific brain regions—such as the thalamus and ventral striatum for heterosexual women viewing male stimuli—while bisexual women displayed intermediate or bilateral activations not strictly aligned with either exclusive pattern, suggesting a unique neural processing of mixed-gender attractions. Similarly, structural MRI research has revealed variations in cortical thickness and subcortical volumes among bisexuals, with some evidence of patterns intermediate between heterosexual and homosexual groups, though sample sizes for bisexual participants remain small and replication is limited. Prenatal hormone exposure, particularly androgens like testosterone, is implicated in shaping sexual orientation, with atypical levels potentially contributing to bisexuality. Animal models and human proxy measures, such as the 2D:4D digit ratio (reflecting prenatal testosterone), correlate with non-exclusive orientations, where bisexual individuals often show ratios intermediate between heterosexual and homosexual averages. A 2017 study linked prenatal progesterone exposure—used in treatments like those for threatened miscarriage—to increased rates of bisexual or homosexual identification in adulthood, with exposed women 29% more likely to report same-sex attractions compared to unexposed controls (n=3,034). Circulating adult sex hormones show inconsistent differences; for instance, one analysis found lesbian and bisexual women with elevated testosterone and progesterone relative to heterosexual women, but overall evidence indicates minimal divergence in baseline levels across orientations. These findings underscore that neurological and hormonal factors likely interact with genetic and environmental influences, but bisexuality-specific research lags due to smaller cohorts and definitional challenges in distinguishing it from exclusive orientations or behavioral fluidity. Peer-reviewed studies emphasize prenatal over postnatal hormonal effects, with adult hormone therapies showing negligible impact on core orientation. Limitations include reliance on self-reported orientation, which may conflate identity with physiology, and potential publication biases favoring novel over null results in understudied subgroups.

Psychological and Developmental Aspects

Classification in Sexual Orientation Models

Bisexuality is positioned intermediately in early dimensional models of sexual orientation, such as the Kinsey scale developed in 1948, which ranges from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual), with ratings of 1-5 indicating varying degrees of bisexuality based on reported attractions, behaviors, and fantasies. This continuum framework implies bisexuality as non-exclusive attraction rather than a discrete category, influencing subsequent self-report measures. However, the Kinsey scale conflates multiple constructs, including physiological arousal, emotional preferences, and overt behavior, limiting its precision for classifying bisexuality empirically. The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, introduced in 1978 and expanded in 1985, refines this approach by evaluating seven dimensions—attractions, sexual fantasies, emotional preferences, social preferences, sex partners, self-identification, and lifestyle—across past, present, and ideal/future time periods on a 1-7 scale akin to Kinsey's. Cluster analyses of the grid reveal bisexual respondents forming subgroups distinct from heterosexual and homosexual clusters, with intermediate but not averaged patterns, supporting bisexuality's classification as a multifaceted, potentially fluid orientation rather than a simple midpoint. This multidimensionality accommodates evidence that bisexual individuals often report non-binary patterns, such as stronger emotional attractions to one gender alongside bisexual behavioral histories. Contemporary debates contrast categorical models, treating heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality as taxonic classes, against dimensional spectra where bisexuality emerges as intermediate variation. Physiological data, including pupillometry and genital plethysmography, demonstrate that bisexual-identified men display category-specific arousal to both male and female stimuli, distinct from monosexual patterns and refuting prior claims of rarity or inauthenticity in male bisexuality. Similarly, genetic analyses indicate bisexual behavior correlates with unique polygenic signals separate from exclusive same-sex or opposite-sex orientations, bolstering evidence for bisexuality as a distinct phenotypic class rather than mere spectrum overlap. Taxometric studies further suggest underlying latent structure favors categorical boundaries for primary orientations, with bisexuality occupying a valid, non-transient position, though fluidity in self-labeling complicates rigid assignment. Scientific consensus affirms that most people experience little or no sense of choice about the sexual attractions underlying bisexuality, like those of other orientations, which emerge through complex interactions of genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural factors; identity represents an interpretive self-concept of these attractions, with neither component nor the overall orientation being voluntarily chosen, though there is no consensus on the exact mechanisms or relative contributions.

Stability and Fluidity Empirical Data

Longitudinal studies indicate that bisexuality demonstrates relative stability in the direction of attractions—characterized by non-exclusive patterns toward both sexes—but greater fluidity in self-reported identity labels compared to exclusive heterosexual or homosexual orientations. In a 10-year prospective study of 79 non-heterosexual women tracked from adolescence to adulthood, 67% changed their sexual identity labels at least once, with one-third shifting two or more times; bisexual and unlabeled identities were adopted more frequently than lesbian or heterosexual ones, while the overall distribution of same-sex versus other-sex attractions remained stable, and declines in same-sex behavior ratios occurred across the sample. This pattern supports models of bisexuality as a distinct orientation with fluid labeling rather than a mere transitional phase to heterosexuality or homosexuality. Gender differences emerge consistently, with women exhibiting less stability in daily attractions and self-reported orientation than men. In a study of 294 adults aged 18–40 using 30-day attraction diaries, women's attractions to preferred and less-preferred genders showed weaker day-to-day correlations (e.g., G more-preferred = .05, p < .05; G less-preferred = .10, p < .01) than men's, while bisexual individuals displayed lower stability in less-preferred gender attractions (G differences up to -.33, p < .001) and reported larger post-adolescent shifts compared to exclusive orientations (p < .001 for less-preferred). Bisexuals across genders also evidenced lower relative stability and more mean changes in orientation identity over one-year intervals than heterosexuals or homosexuals. In youth cohorts, fluidity manifests as higher mobility in identity endorsement, particularly among females. Analysis of self-reports from ages 12–23 in a large sample found females with greater overall mobility (M=0.125 for ages 12–17 versus M=0.081 for males), though sexual minorities—including bisexuals—showed elevated mobility (0.5–0.8) regardless of gender; bisexual identification rose with age (e.g., females from 0.6% at 13 to 2.1% at 23), and initial "unsure" youth often resolved to heterosexual rather than minority identities. Physiological measures highlight a disconnect from subjective reports, underscoring stability in core responses. Genital arousal patterns to sexual stimuli in 52 men and 67 women over one year correlated highly across sessions with minimal change, irrespective of shifts in self-reported orientation, which were more pronounced in women and bisexuals. These findings suggest that while bisexuality involves dynamic elements—especially in identity and attraction intensity—underlying arousal specificity and non-exclusive attraction profiles persist, distinguishing it from greater rigidity in monosexual orientations.

Personality and Behavioral Associations

Bisexual individuals exhibit distinct patterns in Big Five personality traits compared to heterosexual and homosexual counterparts. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that bisexuals report lower conscientiousness than both heterosexuals and homosexuals, a trait associated with self-discipline and impulse control. Bisexual women specifically show elevated neuroticism and openness to experience relative to heterosexual women, alongside reduced conscientiousness, while bisexual men display similar trends in openness but less pronounced differences in other traits. These patterns hold across multiple studies, with heterosexuals demonstrating lower neuroticism and openness but higher agreeableness than bisexuals and homosexuals. Bisexuals also correlate with higher Dark Triad traits—psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism—than heterosexuals, reflecting tendencies toward manipulativeness, self-centeredness, and disregard for social norms. Bisexual women, but not homosexual women, exhibit elevated scores on these traits relative to heterosexual women, with bisexual women showing higher Machiavellianism (p=.020, d=0.22), psychopathy (p<.001, d=0.41), and narcissism (p<.001, d=0.29); they also display slightly higher psychopathy than homosexual women (p=.055, d=0.40). Bisexuals score particularly high on psychopathy and narcissism subscales. In domain-specific traits, bisexual men and women report elevated sexual sensation seeking, sexual curiosity, and sexual excitability, which may facilitate non-exclusive attractions independent of fixed orientations toward one sex. Self-reports from bisexual men in online communities, such as Reddit, frequently describe differing "types" or preferences for women versus men, with broader attractions to many types of women often characterized as more romantic and emotional, contrasted with narrower, more sexual or physical attractions to specific types of men; however, preferences vary widely with no universal pattern. Behaviorally, bisexual women engage in a broader range of sexual activities and express more permissive attitudes toward sex than heterosexual women, including higher frequencies of behaviors like oral sex and casual encounters. Some evidence suggests bisexuals experience heightened sex drive and seek more partners across sexes, potentially linked to lower conscientiousness and elevated sensation seeking. These traits contribute to patterns of relationship instability, with bisexuals facing stereotypes in clinical settings of greater proneness to identity confusion and relational difficulties, though empirical validation remains mixed. Bisexual women also experience elevated rates of intimate partner violence victimization, with lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner at 61%, compared to 44% for lesbian women and 35% for heterosexual women. Mental health outcomes reveal heightened vulnerabilities among bisexuals, with meta-analyses confirming elevated risks of depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder (RR 3.82 for bisexuality compared to heterosexuals; Shu et al., 2024), and other disorders compared to heterosexuals, and often exceeding those in gay/lesbian populations. Bisexuals report more general life stressors and poorer overall mental health than monosexual minorities, attributable in part to minority stress from biphobia and identity marginalization, though bisexual-specific stressors like concealment from both heterosexual and homosexual communities exacerbate disparities. Recent data from 2025 underscores these trends, with bisexuals showing higher odds of mood disorders independent of gender identity factors. Such associations persist after controlling for demographics, pointing to intrinsic links between bisexual orientation, personality, and behavioral risks rather than solely external discrimination.

Epidemiology and Prevalence

Self-Reported Identification Rates

In the United States, a 2025 Gallup poll of more than 14,000 adults reported that 5.2% self-identified as bisexual, comprising the largest subgroup within the 9.3% overall LGBTQ+ identification rate, with straight/heterosexual identification at 85.7%. This marked an increase from earlier surveys, such as the 2013 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which found 0.7% of adults identifying as bisexual out of 1.6% gay or lesbian and 96.6% straight. Bisexual identification has risen notably among younger cohorts, with over 20% of Generation Z adults (born 1997-2012) identifying as LGBTQ+ in Gallup data, predominantly as bisexual. Gender disparities appear consistent across datasets, with women reporting higher bisexual identification rates than men; for instance, U.S. representative samples indicate 3.7% of women versus 1.6% of men. In the United Kingdom, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Annual Population Survey data showed bisexual identification doubling from 0.9% (approximately 457,000 people) in 2018 to around 1.8% by 2023 among those aged 16 and over, contributing to a total lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) rate of 3.3% in 2022. These trends reflect broader increases in non-heterosexual self-identification over time, potentially influenced by reduced stigma, though rates remain below 6% in most national adult populations.
Country/SurveyYearBisexual Identification Rate (%)Total Sample/Notes
US (Gallup)20255.2>14,000 adults; highest among youth
US (NHIS/CDC)20130.7National adults; earlier baseline
UK (ONS)2023~1.8 (doubled from 0.9% in 2018)Aged 16+; part of 3.3% LGB total

Demographic Variations by Gender, Age, and Culture

Self-reported rates of bisexual identification exhibit notable variations by gender, with women consistently reporting higher prevalence than men in large-scale surveys. In the United States, a 2024 Pew Research Center analysis of adults found that 5% of women identified as bisexual, compared to 2% of men. Similarly, Gallup polling from 2024 indicated that women are nearly twice as likely as men to identify as LGBTQ+ overall (8.5% versus 4.7%), with bisexuality driving much of the disparity, as it constitutes the predominant category within LGBTQ+ identifications for both genders but especially women. This gender gap widens among younger cohorts; for instance, among Generation Z adults, Gallup data show bisexual identification rates exceeding 20% for women versus lower rates for men, where gay identification sometimes surpasses bisexual. Age-related trends reveal a marked increase in bisexual identification among younger generations, reflecting generational shifts in self-reporting. Gallup's 2025 survey of U.S. adults reported that over half (59%) of LGBTQ+-identifying Generation Z individuals and 52% of Millennials identify specifically as bisexual, compared to declining proportions in older groups such as Generation X (44%). Overall LGBTQ+ identification, heavily weighted toward bisexuality, reaches 22% among Generation Z but drops to under 2% among those over 50, per 2023 Pew data on lesbian, gay, or bisexual adults. A 2023 analysis of U.S. representative data similarly found bisexual identification at over 6% for ages 18-29, falling below 2% for those over 40. These patterns suggest influences from evolving social norms, though self-reports may capture fluidity or exploratory phases more readily in permissive environments. Cross-cultural data on bisexual identification remain limited and predominantly drawn from Western or urban samples, complicating direct comparisons due to varying stigma levels and survey methodologies. A 2019 study analyzing self-reported sexual orientation from a 2005 BBC internet survey of 191,088 participants across 28 nations (including Western, Asian, and other regions) reported average bisexual identification of 7.2% among women and 5.1% among men, with rates showing relative stability across countries (e.g., around 5-6% in the UK, Australia, and India) and no significant correlations with national gender equality, economic development, or individualism indices. However, lower reporting in non-Western contexts, such as conservative Asian societies, likely reflects underreporting due to social penalties rather than true prevalence differences, as evidenced by smaller-scale studies like a 2020 Hong Kong survey where bisexuals comprised 30% of a cisgender LGB sample but faced heightened mental health risks amid lower acceptance. In cultures with traditional gender roles, such as Samoa, same-sex behaviors occur but are often framed outside Western bisexual categories, integrating into third-gender roles rather than self-identified bisexuality. Overall, empirical evidence indicates that while base attraction patterns may vary modestly, identification rates are heavily modulated by cultural tolerance for non-heteronormative expressions.

Historical Context

Ancient and Pre-Modern References

In ancient Greece, particularly from the Archaic period (c. 800–480 BCE) onward, elite adult males frequently participated in pederasty—erotic and mentorship relationships with adolescent boys—while simultaneously fulfilling marital and procreative obligations with women, reflecting widespread bisexual behavior among the upper classes. This practice was idealized in literature and philosophy; for instance, Plato's Symposium (c. 385–370 BCE) explores male-male eros alongside heterosexual unions, portraying bisexuality as a normative aspect of male sexuality rather than deviant. Historical figures such as Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE), who maintained a close bond with Hephaestion akin to Achilles and Patroclus while marrying Roxana and fathering children, exemplify this pattern, with ancient sources like Plutarch noting such dual attractions without condemnation. Scholarly analysis indicates that while modern notions of fixed sexual orientation were absent, behavioral evidence suggests bisexuality was intrinsic to Greek elite culture, tolerated in art and myth, though penetrative roles among adult males carried stigma. Roman society from the Republic (509–27 BCE) through the Empire mirrored Greek patterns, with male same-sex relations—often with youths or slaves—coexisting with heterosexual marriages and family duties, as documented in poetry by Catullus (c. 84–54 BCE) and Virgil (70–19 BCE), who depicted attractions to both sexes. Emperors exemplified this: Hadrian (r. 117–138 CE) deified his male lover Antinous after his death while married to Sabina, and Elagabalus (r. 218–222 CE) reportedly sought marriage to men alongside women, per the Historia Augusta. Roman law and mores emphasized dominance over gender, permitting bisexual acts if the freeborn male avoided the passive role, thus framing such versatility as a marker of virility rather than a distinct identity. Evidence from artifacts like the Warren Cup (1st century CE), depicting male-male intercourse, underscores cultural acceptance of these practices within a broader heterosexual framework. Beyond the Mediterranean, the Han Dynasty in China (202 BCE–220 CE) provides stark examples, where all ten emperors of the Western Han era maintained documented male favorites—termed "charioteers" or intimate companions—alongside empresses and concubines, with Emperor Ai (r. 7–1 BCE) notably elevating his lover Dong Xian to high office. Court records and histories like the Book of Han portray these relationships as routine, integrated with imperial heterosexual reproduction, suggesting bisexuality as a societal norm among rulers without modern pathologization. In ancient India, Vedic and epic texts (c. 1500–500 BCE) reference mythological figures with dual-gender attractions, such as Ardhanarishvara (Shiva's half-male, half-female form), implying cultural tolerance for bisexual expressions in ritual and narrative contexts, though human behavioral evidence remains sparser. Pre-modern references wane under monotheistic influences, but sporadic evidence persists; for example, in medieval Islamic poetry (8th–13th centuries CE), figures like Abu Nuwas celebrated wine, boys, and women in verses, blending attractions without framing them as conflicting. Overall, these historical instances document bisexual behaviors across civilizations, driven by social structures prioritizing reproduction and hierarchy over exclusive orientations, with primary sources like annals and literature providing behavioral rather than introspective attitudinal data.

Modern Conceptualization (19th-20th Century)

The term bisexuality first appeared in scientific discourse in the mid-19th century, initially denoting biological or anatomical duality rather than erotic attraction. In 1859, anatomist Robert Bentley Todd employed it to describe organisms exhibiting both male and female physical traits, reflecting a physiological understanding rooted in emerging evolutionary biology. By the 1880s, sexologists began adapting the concept to psychosexual contexts, framing bisexuality as a potential stage in "sexual inversion," where individuals displayed mixed-gender traits alongside attractions to both sexes. Pioneering psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing advanced this in the 1892 seventh edition of Psychopathia Sexualis, using "bisexual" to categorize persons with documented desires for both men and women, often as a variant of degeneracy or perversion within a taxonomy of pathological sexualities. Krafft-Ebing's framework, influenced by earlier theorists like Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, viewed such attractions as congenital anomalies disrupting reproductive norms, though he documented cases empirically from clinical histories rather than moral judgment alone. Havelock Ellis, in works like Studies in the Psychology of Sex (published serially from 1897), offered a less pejorative lens, portraying bisexuality as a common, non-pathological variation in human sexuality, supported by anthropological and historical examples of mixed attractions across cultures. Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic contributions in the early 20th century shifted emphasis toward universality. In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), Freud theorized an original bisexual constitution in infancy, where libidinal impulses toward both sexes precede differentiation, with outcomes shaped by developmental arrests or resolutions. He reiterated in 1915 that "all human beings are bisexual" in the sense of distributed libido across sexes, though empirical validation remained speculative, relying on case studies rather than population data. This model influenced subsequent psychology but faced critique for conflating psychic bisexuality (masculine/feminine dispositions) with object-choice, overlooking behavioral evidence. Mid-20th-century empiricism, particularly Alfred Kinsey's 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, challenged categorical binaries through quantitative surveys of over 5,000 men and 6,000 women. Kinsey introduced a 0-6 scale, with 0 denoting exclusive heterosexuality and 6 exclusive homosexuality; positions 1-5 captured bisexual patterns, revealing that 37% of men and 13% of women reported orgasmic experiences with both sexes to some degree, underscoring sexuality's continuum. This data-driven approach demedicalized bisexuality, emphasizing behavioral plasticity over innate fixity, though Kinsey's sampling (urban, volunteer-heavy) drew methodological scrutiny for potential skew toward non-normative respondents. By the 1950s, these conceptualizations coalesced into viewing bisexuality as a distinct, non-pathological orientation on a spectrum, informing decriminalization debates and early identity politics, despite persistent academic marginalization.

Evolutionary Perspectives

Hypotheses for Origins

One prominent evolutionary hypothesis posits that genetic variants associated with bisexual behavior in males confer a reproductive advantage, facilitating the persistence of such traits despite same-sex attractions. A 2023 genome-wide association study analyzing data from over 450,000 individuals in the UK Biobank found that male bisexual behavior exhibits a positive genetic correlation with the number of offspring (r_g = 0.156, P = 0.019), unlike exclusive same-sex behavior, which shows a negative correlation (r_g = -0.404, P = 0.0022). This advantage appears mediated by alleles linked to risk-taking propensity (r_g = 0.484 with male bisexual behavior, P = 1.4 × 10⁻⁸), which independently correlates with higher offspring counts (r_g = 0.366, P = 4.2 × 10⁻²³) and may enhance mating opportunities through bolder pursuit of partners. No such reproductive correlation was observed for female bisexual behavior (r_g = -0.013, P = 0.855). Hypotheses adapted from explanations for exclusive homosexuality also apply to bisexuality, with the key distinction that bisexuality incurs lower direct reproductive costs by retaining opposite-sex attractions. Under kin selection, bisexual individuals may allocate resources to enhance relatives' fitness, as observed in some non-human primates and paralleling patterns in homosexual males who provide alloparental care. Sexually antagonistic selection suggests genes promoting male bisexuality could elevate fecundity in female carriers, maintaining alleles in the population despite partial expression in males. Maternal immune responses, such as fraternal birth order effects, may similarly contribute by influencing androgen exposure prenatally, though evidence remains correlational and debated. Social and signaling hypotheses emphasize bisexuality's role in group dynamics among large, interdependent populations. The prosociality hypothesis frames same-sex sexual attraction, including bisexual patterns, as an extension of traits selected for social integration and reduced aggression, akin to self-domestication in humans and bonobos, where it fosters alliances and conflict resolution with minimal reproductive penalty for non-exclusive individuals. A related sociosexual model proposes that same-sex attractions enable non-reproductive bonding to secure cooperative benefits, with bisexuality's prevalence on the attraction spectrum reflecting adaptive flexibility. In mutual sexual selection contexts, partial disinterest in the opposite sex may signal high mate value, triggering Fisherian runaway escalation that redirects preferences toward bisexuality while preserving some reproductive access, supported by comparable lifetime fecundity between bisexual and heterosexual individuals. These mechanisms collectively suggest bisexuality's evolutionary viability through balanced costs and indirect benefits, though empirical testing remains limited by measurement challenges in self-reported data.

Reproductive and Adaptive Implications

Genetic analyses of large-scale genomic data from over 450,000 individuals have identified variants associated with bisexual behavior in males that positively correlate with the number of offspring produced, unlike variants linked to exclusive same-sex behavior, which show negative correlations. These bisexual-associated alleles appear reproductively advantageous, potentially explaining their persistence in populations despite the reproductive costs of exclusive homosexuality. The same variants are also linked to traits such as risk-taking and openness to experience, which may indirectly boost mating success by facilitating more social and sexual opportunities in ancestral environments. From an adaptive standpoint, bisexual attraction enables greater mate choice flexibility, allowing individuals to form reproductive partnerships with the opposite sex while potentially gaining non-reproductive benefits from same-sex interactions, such as alliances or resource sharing observed in nonhuman primates. This contrasts with exclusive homosexuality, where direct reproduction is rarer, though offset in some models by indirect fitness gains via kin selection. Empirical reproductive data support higher fertility in bisexual-identifying individuals compared to gay or lesbian counterparts; for instance, bisexual men report more children on average in population surveys, aligning with genetic predictions. However, some behavioral studies note variability, with self-identified bisexuals occasionally showing intermediate fertility rates influenced by relationship patterns and societal factors. Causal mechanisms likely involve pleiotropy, where genes influencing sexual orientation also affect traits enhancing overall fitness, such as sociability or extraversion, which promote heterosexual mating even amid same-sex attractions. In females, evidence is sparser, but analogous patterns suggest bisexual behavior may similarly support adaptive strategies in fluid social contexts, though cultural stigma can suppress realized reproduction. Overall, bisexuality's evolutionary viability stems from its compatibility with reproduction, avoiding the fitness penalty of exclusivity while leveraging behavioral versatility for survival and propagation.

Controversies and Scientific Debates

Validity and Measurement Challenges

Assessing the validity of bisexuality as a distinct sexual orientation faces challenges due to inconsistencies between self-reported attraction and physiological measures of arousal. Self-reports, the primary method for identifying bisexual individuals, are prone to biases such as social desirability, where respondents may overstate or understate attractions to align with perceived norms or personal narratives. Physiological assessments, including genital arousal via penile plethysmography (PPG) for men and vaginal photoplethysmography for women, offer objective data but reveal discrepancies, particularly in males, where self-identified bisexuals often exhibit category-specific responses akin to monosexual orientations rather than balanced bisexual patterns. Early research, such as a 2005 study by Rieger, Chivers, and Bailey involving 101 men, found that self-identified bisexual males displayed genital arousal to male stimuli comparable to homosexual men and weaker responses to female stimuli, suggesting bisexuality might reflect interpretive styles of arousal rather than a unique physiological profile. This fueled debates on whether male bisexuality constitutes a genuine intermediate orientation or a transitional phase, with critics arguing that genital responses in men are typically bifurcated (heterosexual or homosexual) due to stronger evolutionary pressures for specificity. Subsequent studies, including a 2011 analysis by Rosenthal et al., identified bisexual arousal in a subset of bisexual men but noted variability, attributing inconsistencies to sample selection or stimulus specificity. A 2020 study by Jabbour et al., analyzing data from over 470 men across multiple experiments, reported "robust evidence" of bisexual genital and subjective arousal patterns in self-identified bisexuals, challenging prior skepticism by using refined stimuli and larger samples. However, methodological critiques persist, including potential confounds from curiosity-driven participation—bisexual men scoring higher on sexual curiosity scales showed more varied arousal—and questions about whether aggregated patterns truly distinguish bisexuality from monosexuality without clearer dose-response gradients. In women, arousal patterns are less category-specific, complicating validation as bisexuality may overlap with generalized responsiveness rather than targeted dual attraction. Definitional ambiguities exacerbate measurement issues, with no unified criteria for bisexuality—ranging from equal attraction to both sexes, predominant same-sex with incidental opposite-sex interest, or behavioral history—leading to heterogeneous samples and non-replicable findings. Longitudinal stability is another hurdle; self-reported bisexual identification often fluctuates, potentially reflecting fluidity, experimentation, or response to cultural shifts rather than innate orientation, as evidenced by higher rates of identity change in population surveys. These challenges underscore the need for multimodal assessments integrating self-report, physiology, and behavior, though ethical constraints on invasive measures limit scalability. Peer-reviewed research on bisexuality remains sparse compared to monosexual orientations, with validation efforts hampered by small samples and reliance on convenience recruitment from LGBTQ+ communities, potentially inflating prevalence estimates.

Criticisms of Bisexuality as a Distinct Orientation

Some researchers have questioned whether bisexuality constitutes a stable, distinct sexual orientation, arguing instead that self-identified bisexual individuals often exhibit physiological and behavioral patterns more aligned with monosexual (heterosexual or homosexual) categories, potentially reflecting transitional phases, denial of homosexuality, or measurement artifacts. Early physiological studies, such as Rieger et al. (2005), measured genital arousal in self-identified bisexual men exposed to male and female erotic stimuli, finding that their responses were category-specific—predominantly heterosexual or homosexual—rather than showing balanced, intermediate arousal to both sexes, challenging the notion of a unique bisexual response profile. This pattern suggested that bisexuality might not represent a third, equidistant orientation on a continuum but could instead mask underlying monosexual preferences. Longitudinal data further highlight instability in bisexual identification, with higher rates of change compared to heterosexual or homosexual labels, implying it may function more as a temporary or fluid state rather than a fixed trait. In a 10-year study of non-heterosexual women by Diamond (2008), while some bisexual attractions persisted, a significant portion shifted labels—67% of initial bisexuals changed to another identity by the end, with patterns of flux that exceeded monosexual stability, supporting critiques that bisexuality often serves as a developmental waypoint rather than an enduring category. Similarly, analyses of large national panels, such as Katz-Wise et al. (2023), reported that bisexual individuals exhibited greater identity fluidity over seven years, with changes bidirectional but more frequent among bisexuals (contributing disproportionately to the 5.7% overall shift rate), raising questions about its categorical distinctiveness from situational or experimental attractions. Savin-Williams and Ream (2007) tracked 156 gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths, observing multiple identity transitions, particularly among bisexuals, which correlated with psychological adjustment challenges and suggested external social influences over innate orientation. From an evolutionary standpoint, critics argue that a truly distinct bisexual orientation lacks clear adaptive utility, as balanced attraction to both sexes would dilute reproductive specificity without the inclusive fitness benefits hypothesized for exclusive homosexuality (e.g., kin selection) or the direct fitness of heterosexuality. Genetic analyses, like those by Zietsch et al. (2024), link bisexual behavior to risk-taking traits rather than a dedicated genetic cluster for dual attractions, implying it emerges as a byproduct of variable mate-seeking strategies rather than a specialized orientation. These empirical patterns—category-specific arousal, label instability, and non-distinct genetic correlates—fuel ongoing debate, though subsequent studies (e.g., Jabbour et al., 2020) have presented counter-evidence for bisexual arousal patterns, underscoring unresolved methodological tensions in arousal measurement and self-report reliability. Despite such affirmations, the preponderance of fluidity data supports viewing bisexuality skeptically as a coherent, biologically discrete entity equivalent to monosexuality.

Biphobia, Erasure, and Societal Skepticism

Biphobia refers to prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination directed specifically at bisexual individuals, often manifesting as assumptions of promiscuity, confusion, or inevitable transition to exclusive homosexuality or heterosexuality. Peer-reviewed studies indicate that biphobic attitudes are more prevalent than homophobia in some contexts, with bisexual people reporting higher rates of rejection from both heterosexual and homosexual communities. For instance, a 2021 systematic review identified stereotypes such as bisexuals being "greedy" or "untrustworthy in relationships" as common drivers of exclusion. Bisexual erasure involves the systemic denial or minimization of bisexuality as a legitimate orientation, often by attributing bisexual attractions to phases or experimentation rather than stable identity. Evidence from surveys shows this erasure contributes to invisibility, with bisexual individuals frequently omitted from LGBTQ+ narratives or research despite comprising a majority of that population in some estimates—nearly 60% of U.S. LGBTQ+ adults identified as bisexual in a 2023 Gallup poll. A 2025 review of 67 studies found that bi+ identities are delegitimized across family, media, and academic settings, with bi-erasure linked to minority stress and reduced service access. Societal skepticism toward bisexuality persists, fueled by doubts about its authenticity, particularly for men, where genital arousal studies have sometimes shown patterns closer to heterosexual or homosexual exclusivity despite self-identification. A 2013 national survey revealed that 15% of respondents outright rejected bisexuality as a real orientation, with attitudes remaining negative overall. More recent data from 2024 indicates bisexuals encounter discrimination at rates comparable to or exceeding other sexual minorities, with 36% of LGBTQ+ adults reporting orientation-based bias, though bisexual-specific invisibility amplifies underreporting. Only 20% of bisexual respondents in a 2016 Movement Advancement Project report perceived local social acceptance for LGB people, lower than rates for gay men (39%) or lesbians (31%). Such skepticism, while rooted in empirical observations of sexual fluidity in some populations, correlates with health disparities, including elevated mental health risks from internalized binegativity.

Social, Cultural, and Health Dimensions

Relationships, Stigma, and Mental Health Outcomes

Bisexual individuals predominantly form opposite-sex unions despite self-reported attractions to both sexes. Analysis of U.S. National Health Interview Survey data from 2013–2017 indicates that among married bisexual adults, 92.8% were in opposite-sex marriages, while 81.4% of cohabiting bisexuals were in opposite-sex partnerships. This pattern holds across studies, with approximately 81% of partnered bisexuals in opposite-sex relationships. Relationship satisfaction among bisexuals in mixed-sex couples is often lower than that of exclusively heterosexual or homosexual partners due to binegativity, disclosure tensions, and acceptance issues, though comparable in supportive contexts with high intimacy and outness. Some self-reports from bisexual women express preferences for sexual experiences with men, citing subjective factors such as the unique physical sensations and intensity of penile-vaginal penetration, which may provide reliable stimulation or orgasm; however, experiences vary widely and are highly individual, with no universal preference. Stigma against bisexuals, termed biphobia, encompasses prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination from heterosexual, homosexual, and broader societal sources, including perceptions of bisexuality as a phase, indecision, or inherent promiscuity leading to infidelity. Such binegative attitudes contribute to bisexual erasure, where bisexual experiences are invalidated or overlooked in both mainstream and LGBTQ+ contexts, fostering internalized binegativity and identity concealment. Research links these stigmas to relational challenges, such as skepticism from potential partners about monogamy fidelity, though empirical data do not consistently support higher infidelity rates among bisexuals compared to monosexuals. Bisexual individuals experience elevated mental health risks relative to heterosexuals and, in many cases, gay or lesbian individuals, with disparities attributed in part to minority stress from biphobia and non-disclosure. Recent genetic research indicates additional factors beyond stigma. Zietsch et al. (2024) identified genetic variants for bisexual behavior that correlate with risk-taking (r_g = 0.484, P = 1.4 × 10⁻⁸) and reproductive advantage in males, distinct from exclusive same-sex variants. Genetic correlations exist between same-sex sexual behavior and depression (r_g = 0.33 in males, 0.44 in females; Ganna et al., 2019). These findings indicate that while stigma plays a role, it is not a sufficient or exclusive explanation; underlying genetic, temperamental, and behavioral factors appear to contribute independently to the elevated risk. Mental health disparities persist in tolerant societies like the Netherlands at rates comparable to less tolerant nations. Bailey (2020) proposes a reversed‑causation model, in which pre‑existing traits such as higher neuroticism increase both the likelihood of non‑heterosexual identification and the tendency to perceive and be affected by stigma, further supporting the view that mental health disparities are not solely products of external prejudice. A 2022 meta-analysis of population-based studies found bisexuals had 2.78 times higher odds of any mental disorder (95% CI: 2.34–3.21) compared to heterosexuals, exceeding the 2.16 odds for gay/lesbian individuals; specific risks included depression (OR 2.70), anxiety (OR 2.87), and suicidality (OR 4.81). A 2024 analysis of the Nurses' Health Study II found bisexual women died an estimated 37% sooner and lesbian women 20% sooner than heterosexual women, attributed to a combination of factors, including structural and interpersonal marginalization (stigma, discrimination, reduced access to care), as well as intrinsic vulnerabilities correlated with sexual minority status (e.g., higher baseline rates of depression, risk-taking, and comorbid physical health burdens that persist even in highly tolerant societies). Females with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) also show elevated rates of bisexual identification, being three to four times more likely than neurotypical females, indicating potential neurodevelopmental links to both orientation diversity and associated mental health risks.
Mental Health OutcomeBisexual Women (%)Heterosexual Women (%)Lesbian Women (%)Bisexual Men (%)Heterosexual Men (%)Gay Men (%)
Lifetime Mood Disorders58.730.544.436.919.842.3
Lifetime Anxiety Disorders57.831.340.838.718.641.2
Suicidality45.49.629.534.87.425.2
Substance use disorders are similarly heightened, with bisexuals showing 31.2% rates of problem drinking and illicit substance use, attributed to coping with stigma as well as underlying genetic correlations with risk-taking and impulsivity. Bisexual individuals also exhibit higher rates of sexually transmitted infections relative to heterosexuals, reflecting both behavioral patterns and barriers to healthcare access. While internalized binegativity and discrimination independently predict poorer outcomes beyond general LGBTQ+ stressors, these associations interact with pre-existing vulnerabilities rather than operating in isolation.

Media Representation and Visibility

Bisexual individuals have historically received limited visibility in mainstream media, often appearing as secondary characters or through stereotypical lenses that undermine the orientation's legitimacy. In scripted broadcast, cable, and streaming programming for the 2022-2023 season, GLAAD documented 113 bisexual+ characters out of 468 total LGBTQ characters, comprising 24 percent of such roles. This proportion aligns roughly with self-reported bisexual identification rates within broader LGBTQ surveys, where bisexuals constitute the majority, yet critics argue it reflects underreporting due to media tendencies to categorize bisexual characters as gay or lesbian upon entering same-sex relationships. Representation skews heavily toward women, with 75 percent of bisexual characters in the 2017-2018 television season identified as female, exacerbating invisibility for bisexual men who are frequently absent or portrayed as transitional figures en route to exclusive homosexuality. Common tropes include hypersexuality, promiscuity, infidelity, or confusion, as seen in analyses of characters like those in Lost Girl or The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where bisexuality signals deviance rather than stable attraction. These portrayals contribute to cultural skepticism, with research indicating that media reinforcement of such stereotypes correlates with higher rates of bisexual erasure and internalized doubt among viewers. Film representation lags further, with bisexual characters accounting for only 14 percent of LGBTQ roles in the 2020 Studio Responsibility Index, a slight decline from prior years and often confined to niche or exploitative narratives. Progress has occurred in select series, such as increased inclusion in streaming content post-2010, but studies highlight persistent challenges: bisexual arcs frequently resolve into monogamous opposite-sex pairings, minimizing ongoing visibility, or invoke the "disaster bi" archetype of relational chaos. Academic examinations, including those of BBC productions like Torchwood, note that even ostensibly positive depictions can perpetuate perceptions of bisexuality as experimental or illegitimate, reflecting broader societal attitudes rather than authentic diversity. Overall, while numerical visibility has grown modestly since the early 2000s, qualitative depth remains deficient, with bisexual experiences rarely explored beyond sexual experimentation or as foils for monosexual narratives.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5603307/
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X19304660
  3. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2003631117
  4. https://undark.org/2020/08/17/bisexuality-paper-draws-critics/
  5. https://nypost.com/2025/02/23/lifestyle/bisexuality-is-a-near-universal-experience-in-primates-humans-included-scientist/
  6. https://www.queermajority.com/essays-all/the-data-behind-the-bisexual-revolution
  7. https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/60/4/1257/381063/Sexual-Fluidity-Implications-for-Population
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10796114/
  9. https://www.science.org/content/article/bisexual-behavior-genetically-tied-risk-taking-controversial-dna-analysis-finds
  10. https://www.bsms.ac.uk/about/news/2023/07-25-bisexual-people-experience-worse-health-outcomes-than-other-adults-in-england-national-study-finds.aspx
  11. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-023-00369-8
  12. https://www.etymonline.com/word/bisexuality
  13. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/evolution-word-bisexual-why-it-s-still-misunderstood-n1240832
  14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299710802659989
  15. https://lithub.com/nope-not-a-trend-on-the-modern-origins-and-evolution-of-bisexual-identity/
  16. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/bisexual_adj
  17. https://dictionary.apa.org/bisexuality
  18. https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/bisexual
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4268786/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382978/
  21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299716.2021.1911015
  22. https://www.sussexrainbowcounselling.com/post/bisexual-vs-pansexual
  23. https://www.bisexualorganizingproject.org/whats-up/bi-pan-and-the-insufficiency-of-prefixes
  24. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4
  25. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693
  26. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38170769/
  27. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-bisexuality-genetic-its-more-complex-than-some-studies-imply/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16102058/
  29. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01578.x
  30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15482445/
  31. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15299716.2015.1022924
  32. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/08/study-finds-pupil-dilation-reveals-sex-orientation
  33. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02137-y
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301051114002506
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35412933/
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41314
  37. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/31275/woods_mm_thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453002000227
  39. https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/en/publications/prenatal-exposure-to-progesterone-affects-sexual-orientation-in-h
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453016301846
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32405900/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3138231/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302219300585
  45. https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.html
  46. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015820117
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4267693/
  48. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01511/full
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009265662400014X
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394602203_Is_sexual_orientation_a_categorical_or_spectrum_dimension_An_exploratory_study_of_different_sexual_orientation_measurements_and_scales
  51. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18194000/
  53. https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Stability%20of%20sexual%20attractions%20across%20different%20timescales.pdf
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3081371/
  55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32510233/
  56. https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/neuroticism/2020-allen.pdf
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368503242_Personality_differences_among_heterosexuals_homosexuals_and_bisexuals
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921004177
  59. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/items/9f6bc57a-d2f9-476f-946f-eaec0f9f2f81
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261839583_Bisexuality_is_associated_with_elevated_sexual_sensation_seeking_sexual_curiosity_and_sexual_excitability
  61. https://www.reddit.com/r/bisexual/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10903581/
  63. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02665-9
  64. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2023-59982-001.html
  65. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_victimization_final-a.pdf
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016503271930312X
  67. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13405
  68. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1490157/full
  69. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026241286875?icid=int.sj-full-text.similar-articles.7
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29099625/
  71. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829703
  72. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-rises.aspx
  73. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371787751_The_Rise_of_Bisexuality_US_Representative_Data_Show_an_Increase_Over_Time_in_Bisexual_Identity_and_Persons_Reporting_Sex_with_Both_Women_and_Men
  75. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2023
  76. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2021and2022
  77. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/28/for-pride-month-6-facts-about-bisexual-americans/
  78. https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.aspx
  79. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/23/5-key-findings-about-lgbtq-americans/
  80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37345997/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7031179/
  82. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/sgd-sgd0000160.pdf
  83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ww3vwr
  84. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.12987/9780300236170/html
  85. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/diogenes/article/androgynous-and-bisexuality-in-ancient-legal-codes/B45ADA8A4C66E299C7E7779A3E88C91C
  86. https://daily.jstor.org/in-han-dynasty-china-bisexuality-was-the-norm/
  87. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/diogenes/article/bisexuality-in-the-mythology-of-ancient-india/66CD2BD5524F2DCA4E90230AAED70037
  88. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/short-history-word-bisexuality
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37272900/
  90. https://bi.org/en/101/Sexual-Orientation
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3381524/
  92. https://read.dukeupress.edu/differences/article/28/2/65/129404/Writing-the-Drive-From-Freud-s-Theory-of
  93. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15299710903316588
  94. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299710802501652
  95. https://erlc.com/research/alfred-kinsey-a-brief-summary-and-critique/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9017398/
  97. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-evolutionary-perspectives-on-sexual-psychology/male-bisexuality/6951CF3F2D27E50A1DC1F682667F50AF
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6976918/
  99. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00628/full
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513808000688
  101. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550620980916
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344950360_The_Futile_Search_for_%27Physiological_Evidence%27_of_Male_Bisexuality_A_Response_to_Jabbour_et_al
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301051111001785
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7414168/
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24055219/
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167876016307759
  107. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323619723_Defining_Bisexuality_Challenges_and_Importance_of_and_Toward_a_Unifying_Definition
  108. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2016612117
  109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281100867_Bisexuality_Validation_Jeopardized_by_Lack_of_Quality_Research
  110. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201603/the-continuing-controversy-over-bisexuality
  111. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3215279/
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27873031/
  114. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-19050-001
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10035584/
  116. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299716.2025.2498333
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8166211/
  118. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3879668-in-lgbtq-america-bisexuals-are-the-invisible-majority/
  119. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=education-facultypubs
  120. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/15-percent-of-people-dont-think-bisexuality-is-real-sexual-orientation-study/
  121. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-024-00990-9
  122. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-lgbtqi-community-reported-high-rates-of-discrimination-in-2024/
  123. https://www.lgbtmap.org/news/invisible-majority-release
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4283842/
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7039402/
  126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.013
  127. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339935064_The_Impact_of_Bisexual_Identity_on_Sexual_and_Relationship_Satisfaction_of_Mixed_Sex_Couples
  128. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000732
  129. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2025.2541161
  130. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-30920-001.html?sr=1
  131. https://peplau.psych.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2017/07/Spalding-Peplau-97.pdf
  132. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj6958
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10729573/
  134. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087961
  135. https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-020-00363-0
  136. https://www.psychiatry.org/getmedia/78267295-37e1-4894-8cc7-bff2ac39bb72/Mental-Health-Facts-for-Bisexual-Populations.pdf
  137. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1490157/full
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10424773/
  139. https://glaad.org/whereweareontv23/representation-of-bisexual-characters/
  140. https://glaad.org/reference/bisexual/
  141. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bi-visibility-day-media-bisexuality-portrayal/
  142. https://issuu.com/cwupulse/docs/pulse_fall_issue1_print/s/18108
  143. https://vtcynic.com/opinion/bisexual-men-are-underrepresented-in-the-media-and-it-needs-to-change/
  144. https://btchflcks.com/2016/09/bi-erasure-in-film-and-tv-the-difficulty-of-representing-bisexual-people-on-screen.html
  145. https://www.indiependent.co.uk/bisexual-characters-on-tv-stereotypes-and-subversions/
  146. https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1271
  147. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2011.546729
  148. https://glaad.org/sri/2020/overview/
  149. https://mygwork.com/news/bisexual-representation-in-television-and-film-progress-and-opportunities
  150. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254367187_GLAAD_to_Be_Torchwood_Bisexuality_and_the_BBC
  151. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=honorscollege_theses
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.