Bisexuality Research Review

This article was downloaded by: [University College London]
On: 20 October 2013, At: 14:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Annual Review of Sex Research

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hzsr20
Bisexuality: The State of the

Union
Paula C. Rodrguez Rust PhD
Hamilton College , USA

Published online: 15 Nov 2012.
To cite this article: Paula C. Rodrguez Rust PhD (2002) Bisexuality: The State of the
Union, Annual Review of Sex Research, 13:1, 180-240
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2002.10559805
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Bisexuality: The State of the Union

Paula C. Rodriguez Rust
Hamilton College
In many contemporary Occidental societies, bisexuality is paradoxical. Commonly conceived as a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality,
bisexuality as such became conceivable only after the popularization of the
heterohomosexual dichotomy during the late 19th and 20th centuries. Paradoxically, however, the concepts of hetero- and homosexuality, reflecting the
cultural belief that a n individual's feelings of sexual attraction are naturally
directed toward the other sex or, alternatively, toward the same sex, simultaneously renders bisexuality-as a n attraction to both genders-inconceivable. In this article, I review t h e historical and cultural processes t h a t
produced the paradoxical conceivability of bisexuality. I then discuss the cultural attitudes toward bisexuality that result from this paradox and show
how scientific research on bisexuality has been guided by popular conceptions of, and attitudes toward, bisexuality. Finally, I review efforts to reconceptualize bisexuality for both political a n d scientific purposes, a n d
summarize recent research on bisexuality using these reconceptualizations.
This summary includes research on the prevalence of bisexuality, prejudice
against bisexuals, patterns of bisexual behavior, and the meaning of bisexual
self-identity.
Key Words: biphobia, bisexuality, gay, history of sexuality, lesbian, sexual

behavior, sexual identity.
In many contemporary Western societies, particularly those influenced during the 19th and 20th centuries by European concepts of
gender and sexuality, bisexuality is commonly defined as a combination of sexual attractions to o r sexual contacts with both men and
women. Like any cultural concept, this concept of bisexuality is poss i b l e a t t h i s m o m e n t i n t i m e b e c a u s e of h i s t o r i c a l c u l t u r a l
processes. In particular, the late 19th century development of the
concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality as forms of sexuality
characterized by sexual impulses directed toward members of either
one's own gender or the opposite gender made it possible to conceptualize the combination of both such impulses (i.e., bi-sexuality).
Paradoxically, however, the same historical developments-the conceptualization of heterosexuality and homosexuality as distinct
forms of sexuality, predicated upon concepts of men and women as
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paula C. Rodriguez Rust,

PhD, 23 Rebel Run Drive, East Brunswick, NJ 08816. (paularust@world.oberlin.edu)
180
BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION
181
opposite genders-also made it difficult for contemporary lay people

and social scientists t o believe that such a combination could exist
within a single individual. Bisexuality is, therefore, simultaneously
conceivable and inconceivable.
This paradox, whose nature and historical roots will be discussed
further subsequently, underlies contemporary popular attitudes
toward bisexuality and has shaped scientific research on bisexuality. In particular, the dominance of the homosexual/heterosexual
paradigm in sexology led t o a lack of research on bisexuality
through the 1970s. Since the 1970s, however, social scientific interest in bisexuality has grown in response t o popular news media
reports of increased prevalence of bisexual behavior during preAIDS, sexual freedom movements, later fears that bisexuals would
contribute to the spread of HIV from gay men to heterosexual
women, and an increasingly politically active self-identified bisexual population. To facilitate research on bisexuality, some social scientists have rejected the heterosexual/homosexual paradigm and
proposed alternative conceptualizations of sexuality. Research on
bisexuality still lags far behind research on lesbianism and male
homosexuality, but research sufficient t o warrant review has been
done in several areas, including the prevalence of bisexuality, cultural attitudes toward bisexuals, patterns of bisexual behavior, and
the meaning of bisexual self-identity.
In this article, I summarize a n d update selected portions of
Bisexuality in the United S t a t e s (Rust, ZOOOb), a comprehensive
review of over 1,000 thousand articles, books, and chapters constituting, with few exceptions, the entire body of social scientific and
psychological research, theory, and clinical literature on human
bisexuality. Both the book and this article include works found in
sociological and psychological databases, as well as relevant works
cited therein, excluding psychiatric and social work case studies,
dissertations, and works published in languages other than English. Although in both the book and this article I focus primarily on
the period 1960s-1990s in the United States, works published prior
t o the 1960s and works published in other countries are included
selectively.
Historical and Cultural Processes Underlying the Paradox of

Bisexuality: The Birth of the Erotic Individual
Prior to t h e l a t e 1 9 t h century, i n European a n d Europeaninfluenced societies, including the United States and Victorian England, manhood and womanhood were defined primarily in terms of
182
P. RUST
the roles of husband/father and wife/mother (Katz, 19951.l Men and

women followed gendered scripts, learned complementary skills,
and married each other to form unions for procreative and economic
purposes. Two halves made a whole. Over time, the fortunate American couple developed a comfortable and affectionate love, but passionate
love consisting of intense sexual attraction was considered an unstable
basis for a longstanding partnership and, therefore, not a legitimate
primary criterion for choosing a marriage partner (Seidman, 1991).
Because women and men socialized in gender segregated settings, led
very different lives, and had different concerns, close emotional relationships between women and men were neither expected nor likely.
Men and women found emotional satisfaction outside of marriage with
same-sex friends (Smith-Rosenberg, 1975). Occasionally, these extramarital same-sex contacts might have led to extramarital sexual activity or
relationships, but most historians in the field of sexology argue that the
participants were not conceptualized as homosexual, lesbian, or gay; on
the contrary, they remained men and women as defined by their relationships to their wives, husbands, and children (Faderman, 1991).
Nineteenth-century women and men with sexual attractions to their own
sex might have been as successful in marriage as individuals with sexual
attractions to the other sex, because the success of the 19th-century marriage was not centrally defined by sexual or emotional fulfillment. The
few women and men who did establish households with same-sex partners were generally privileged individuals who could escape the economic
and social pressures facing most men and women. In general, unmarried
individuals, particularly women, remained an economic burden on their
families of origin and were haunted by the feeling that they had failed as
women; childless couples were pitied for their failure as couples.
Katz (1990, 1995) argued that during the late 19th and early 20th
centuries cultural concepts of womanhood and manhood changed. As
economic circumstances improved and family survival became less
dependent upon the economic complementarity of men and women, the
'A number of authors have recounted various aspects of the history of the concepts of
the homosexual and heterosexual persons and the broader history of marriage, the family,
and sexuality, including, in addition to those cited in the text, Adam (1979, 19871, Altman
(19821, Boswell (1980, 1982, 19901, Bray (19821, Bullough (1976, 1979, 19901, Chauncey
(1982-19831,Coleman (1998), De Cecco (19811, Foucault (19791, Freedman (20011, Haeberle
and Gindorf (19981, Halperin (19931, Herdt (19881, Katz (1976, 1983, 1990, 1995, 19971,
McIntosh (19681, Miller (19951, Murray (19841, Padgug (19791, Paul (1983-1984), Plummer
(1975,1981~1,1981b1, Richardson (19841, Rupp (20011, Somerville (1996), Trumbach (19771,
and Weeks (1977, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1985, 1986). For criticisms or alternative versions of
this historical process, see Boswell(19901, Coleman (1998), and Trumbach (1977).
183
idea that fulfillment as a man or woman meant successful fulfillment of

ones role in the family as husbandlfather or wife/mother gradually gave
way to a more individualistic concept of self-fulfillment. Women and
men came to be seen not only as members of families with romantic
and procreative motivations, but also as eroticized individuals with
sexual desires. Taking ones own desires into consideration in the
choice of a marriage partner became more acceptable and marriage
evolved into a social and emotional partnership (May, 1988). By the
late 1970s and 1980s, the standards for a successful marriage had
changed; spouses might not share bank accounts and might choose to
remain childfree, but they were expected t o be sexually attracted to
each other, have an active sex life, and be each others best friend
(DEmilio & Freedman, 1988). Men were defined less by their roles as
husbanddfathers and more as individuals with a sexual attraction
toward women, and women were defined less as wiveslmothers and
more as individuals with a sexual attraction toward men. For both genders, displays of sexual attraction toward the other sex became part of
the display of ones own masculinity or femininity.
As a newly legitimate basis for intimate relationships, sexual attraction was doubly gendered: first, because appropriate feelings of sexual
attraction became part of the definition of ones own gender and, second,
because this sexual attraction was assumed to be directed toward a particular gender. Although their origin within the context of male-female
procreative marital relationships led to an initial assumption that normative attractions would be between other-gender individuals (Coleman, 1998; Katz, 1990), the transformation of men and women from
family members to erotic individuals with gendered sexual attractions
also created cultural space for the recognition of sexual attractions
between women and between men. Intellectuals, trying to understand
why some people engage in deviant same-sex sexual activities, theorized the existence of different types of sexual people, beginning with
the invert and urning (e.g., Ellis, 1897/1915, 1928; Hirschfeld,
1896/1938; Ulrichs, 1864; Westphal, 1870) followed by the homosexual, coined by Kertbeny (1869) and the heterosexual-a term which,
ironically, initially referred to persons with inclinations to both sexes
(Katz, 1997, p. 178). Some decades later, the concepts of homosexual
and heterosexual persons formed the basis for the homophile, gay liberation, and lesbian feminist movements of the mid- and late-20th century. These movements, constructed around the idea of a lesbian/gay
minority struggling against a dominant heterosexual majority, popularized the belief that there are two-and only two-possible types of sexual people, that is, homosexuals and heterosexuals (cf. Coleman, 1998).
184
P. RUST
These historical changes have placed bisexuality in its current paradoxical position. Bisexuality-as a sexual attraction to both genderscould not be conceived until purely procreative understandings of
sexuality were replaced, not only by recognition of the role of sexual
attraction and desire in sexuality but also by the construction of that
desire in terms of attractions to gendered individuals k e . , in terms of a
distinction between same-gender and other-gender desires). Had sexual
desire not come to be seen in terms of attractions to men or to women,
the idea that one could be attracted to both genders would be unnecessary and nonsensical; one cannot combine that which has never been
separate-and one would not need to. Paradoxically, however, the same
19th-century conceptualizations of men and women as complementary
to each other and of gender as fundamentally important also produced
the belief that sexual attraction must be directed toward either men or
women as men or women. Today, we still refer to men and women as
opposite genders, and we find ourselves socially compelled to classify
people into one of the two genders; in English, the only nongendered
singular pronoun we have is the dehumanizing it. But if people must be
gendered and the genders are opposites, then attractions toward women
and men must be opposite attractions. If one is attracted to a woman,
how can one simultaneously be attracted to a man who is everything a
woman is not and nothing that she is? Thus, bisexuality is, at this point
in history, uniquely conceivable as bi-sexuality, and it is also uniquely
inconceivable as bi-sexuality.
Contemporary Popular Attitudes Toward Bisexuality

The conceivability of bisexuality only as a combination of hetero- and
homosexuality, and the simultaneous inconceivability of such a combination, underlie contemporary attitudes toward bisexuality; these attitudes reflect t h e paradox of their roots. Foremost among these
attitudes, and arising from the inconceivability of bisexuality, is the
belief that bisexuality does not exist (Klein, 1978, 1993; Ochs, 1996).
Women and men who say they are bisexual are often assumed to be lesbians or gay men who are denying their true sexuality either because
they are going through a transitional phase of coming out, because they
are afraid to face their own or others homophobia, or because they are
unwilling to shoulder the burden of being a member of an oppressed
minority (Esterberg, 1997; Rust, 199313). On the other hand, individuals
who engage in same-sex activity while involved in sexually permissive
subcultures such as college campuses, womens consciousness raising
groups, or swinging are often believed t o be heterosexuals who are
merely experimenting (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1976b, 1977; Dixon,
BISEXUALITY THE STATE OF THE UNION
185
1984). LUGS, or Lesbians Until Graduation, for example, are women

who consider themselves lesbians and live lesbian lifestyles during college but shift t o heterosexual lifestyles after graduation. The term
implies that such women try lesbianism because it is easy or stylish in
college, but return to heterosexuality when they enter the real world
because they are truly heterosexual, not lesbian or bisexual. Regardless
of whether there are individuals for whom bisexual behavior would
appropriately be called experimental or transitional, these invalidating
beliefs (Rust, 1995b) are a cultural phenomenon which functions t o
preserve the belief that bisexuality cannot exist by reconciling the fact
t h a t some people claim to be bisexual, behave bisexually, or feel
attracted to both men and women with the construction of heterosexuality and homosexuality as the only two true forms of sexuality (also Armstrong, 1995; Klein, 1993).
Whereas the inconceivability of bisexuality underlies the belief that
bisexuality does not exist, the simultaneous conceivability of bisexuality also leads to beliefs about bisexuals. Because heterosexuality and
homosexuality are conceptualized as contrary forms of sexual attraction, bisexuals are believed to experience conflict between their heterosexual and homosexual sides. If t h e heterosexual side seeks a n
other-sex partner and the homosexual side seeks a same-sex partner,
then the two halves of a bisexual must be in conflict with each other
over their different requirements, resulting in unstable, nonmonogamous sexual behavior. Thus, bisexuals-despite widespread belief in
their nonexistence-are stereotyped as psychologically conflicted, emotionally immature, and sexually promiscuous.
More recent historical changes in contemporary sexual culture have
introduced nuances into the general paradoxical cultural attitude
toward bisexuality. Following the (hetero)sexual freedom movement of
the 1960s, the burgeoning gay liberation movement of the late 1960s
and early 1970s created conditions in which bisexuality could be seen as
expression of further sexual freedom. Sex positive lifestyles, such as
swinging, provided opportunities for bisexual experiences and created
fertile ground for a positive self-awareness among bisexuals, leading to
the growth of bisexual communities in cities such as San Francisco
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 197613; Dworkin, 2001; Hutchins, 1996). Popul a r news magazines proclaimed bisexuality chic i n t h e 1970s.
Newsweek published Bisexual Chic: Anyone Goes (19741, and Cosmopolitan offered Bisexuality: The Newest Sex-Style (1974), in which
bisexuality was described as a fashionable and healthy form of sexual
openness. The trend was also reflected in books published during the
1970s, including The Bisexual Option: A Concept of One-Hundred Per-
186
P. RUST
cent Intimacy (Klein, 1978) and Loving Them Both: A Study of Bisexuality (MacInnes, 1973).
During the same decade, lesbian feminists, reacting to the heterosexism of the 1960s leftist movements and the male chauvinism of the
early gay liberation movement, proclaimed lesbianism the expression
of feminism (e.g., Brown, 197211975, 1976; Myron & Bunch,
1972/1975; Radicalesbians, 1970; also Jeffreys, 1999).2 In this view,
having intimate sexual relationships with men-especially those sanctioned by state-approved marriage in which womens legal rights did
not equal mens-amounted to participating in and thereby supporting
the oppressive patriarchal structure. Heterosexuality could be excused
as false consciousness, but bisexuality was either feminist treason, a
cop-out used by lesbians who were afraid to shoulder their share of
lesbian oppression, or a hedonistic lifestyle for those who wanted to
get the best of both worlds; that is, the pleasure of sex with women
plus social approval for and economic benefits from their relationships
with men (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1977; Ponse, 1978; Rust, 1992,
1995b; Stein, 1999; Warren, 1974; Wolf, 1979). Both the heterosexual
construction of bisexuality as chic and the lesbian feminist construction of bisexuality as a political cop-out characterized bisexuality as
an irresponsible, unenduring, inauthentic form of sexuality. Heterosexuals expected bisexual experimenters to grow up and live heterosexual lives, and lesbians hoped that bisexual women would start
taking their politics seriously, stop sleeping with the enemy, and commit themselves to the lesbian struggle.
When the discovery of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
and its method of transmission transformed Gay-Related Immune
Deficiency (GRID) to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
in the early to mid-l980s, the three recognized risk groups were
called the three Hs: Homosexuals, Hemophiliacs, and Haitians.
Popular jokes reflected cultural discomfort with homosexuality, Q:
Whats the hardest part of telling your parents you have AIDS? A:
Convincing them you are Haitian. A t first, heterosexuals felt safe
knowing that AIDS affected them (gays) not us, but this feeling of
safety evaporated as reports of women who had contracted HIV from
2For discussions of lesbian feminist constructions of lesbian identity, including the

political implications of sex with men and lesbian attitudes toward bisexuality, see
Clausen (1990), Clinton (1996), Daumer (19941, Echols (19841, Esterberg (1997), Faderman (19911, Golden (1994, 1996), Hollibaugh and Moraga (1981/1983), Kaplan (19921,
King (1986), Ochs (1996), Rust (1993b, 1995b), Udis-Kessler (19961, Weise (1992), and
Young (1992).
187
their husbands surfaced. News magazines in the 1980s published

articles with titles like The Secret Life of Bisexual Husbands (Davidowitz, 19931, The Risky Business of Bisexual Love (Gerrard &
Halpin, 19891, and A Perilous Double Love Life (Gelman, 19871,
warning wives t o beware of husbands who put their families at risk
for disease by having sex with other men (Miller, 2002; Rust, 2000b).
Bisexuality was no longer chic; now it was the doorway for a plague
and bisexuals were the ultimate pariahs of the 80s (Gelman, 1987,
p. 44). Meanwhile, the increased attention t o bisexuality, especially
in association with a deadly disease, heightened the psychological
and political threat posed by bisexuality t o lesbian and gay mens
identities and political strategies. I (Rust, 2000b) argued that the
lesbian and gay press responded with intensified efforts to deny
bisexual existence and condemn bisexual behavior; for example, articles published in The Advocate and Lesbian Contradiction during the
1980s discussed not the politics of bisexuality but the politics of lesbians who sleep with men and of gay men who have sex with women.
Even more telling are the letters t o the editor which followed each
article, letters which, for example, blasted the authors . . . for using
lesbian space t o discuss their heterosexuality (Rust, 2000b, p. 542,
emphasis mine).
Responding in part to increased condemnation of bisexuality in the
wake of AIDS, both from heterosexual society and the lesbiadgay community, bisexual activists struggled to become visible and present a more
positive image of bisexuality. Although bisexuals had been out and visible
within sex-positive subcultures since the 1960s, the 1980s called for a
more public and political form of visibility (A. Dworkin, 2001; Hutchins,
1996). For example, in 1983 the Gay Community News published a cartoon depicting a lesbian whose bisexual lover had left her, captioned with
a quip about the need for bisexual insurance. The cartoon inspired an
existing bisexual group, the Bivocals, to call a meeting which led to the
formation of the politically oriented Boston Bisexual Womens Network or
BBWN.(Deihl, 1989). BBWN continues to take a leadership role in the
bisexual community and political movement today. Bisexual activists
began writing letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines, and by
the late 1980s articles sympathetic to bisexuality and proclaiming a new
politics of bisexuality began appearing in both mainstream and lesbian
and gay publications. Not surprisingly, some of the first bi-positive articles appeared in Boston papers, the home of the BBWN, and in s a n Francisco, the home of the San Francisco Bisexual Center, founded in 1976. In
1983, the Boston Globe published Bisexuality: Toward a New Understanding of Men, Women, and Their Feelings (Kroeber), and the San
188
P. RUST
Francisco Chronicle published How Bisexuals Face a Hostile World

(Rubin). The new trend also showed up in the lesbian and gay press. For
example, the editors of OutlLook received such a striking number of
responses from bisexuals in response to a series of articles published in
1992 t h a t they included a dialogue between t h r e e bisexual
writerslactivists in the next issue. Soon thereafter, the mainstream press
picked up the new take on bisexuality; in 1995 Newsweek published
Bisexuality Emerges as a New Sexual Identity (Leland), and in 2000
Ms. Magazine published Bi: Were Not Confused (Patrick). Bisexuality
had its third face in as many decades: Having been celebrated as trendy
and then exiled as pariahs, bisexuals had now become the newest branch
of the sexual politics movement.
Popular Attitudes Guide Scientific Research

As is true in many areas of scientific study, research on bisexuality
has been shaped by popular attitudes. Up through the mid-l980s, the
cultural belief that bisexuality does not exist led t o a lack of research
on bisexuality. Paul (1985) and MacDonald (1983) reviewed previous
research and found that researchers typically ignored bisexuality
altogether, identified bisexuals for the purpose of excluding them
from research on gay men and lesbians, o r lumped them together
with gay men and lesbians in reflection of the popular belief that
they a r e really gay men and lesbians (see also De Cecco, 1981,
1985; Shively, Jones, & De Cecco, 1983-1984). Although some
researchers, most notably Kinsey and colleagues, had already argued
for the concept of a sexual continuum on which degrees of bisexuality could be represented and studied, most researchers following in
the Kinseyan tradition conceptualized bisexuality as a lesser degree
of homosexuality o r as a matter of diversity among homosexuals
(e.g., Bell, 19751, and many used the Kinsey scale t o assess subjects
only t o eliminate those scoring in the midrange.
Paralleling popular invalidating beliefs about bisexuality, social
scientists coined the terms situational homosexuality, secondary
homosexuality (Feldman & MacCulloch, 19711, latent homosexuality (e.g., Salzman, 19651, and pseudohomosexuality (De Cecco &
Shively, 1984; Gonsiorek, 1982; Hansen & Evans, 1985) to characterize the behavior of individuals who had had sex with both men and
women. Research on situational homosexuality was particularly popular in the 1960s and 1970s, including studies of same-sex behavior
among heterosexual men and women in prison, recreational same-sex
behavior among women in the (hetero)sex trade (e.g., James, 1976;
McCaghy & Skipper, 19691, and same-sex prostitution among hetero-
189
sexually identified males including male juvenile delinquent^.^

Among women prisoners, for example, Giallombardo (1966) and Ward
and Kassebaum (1965) documented family-style relationships which
sometimes included sexual activity. They reported t h a t womens
prison subculture recognizes the lesbian and the jailhouse turnout.
The turnout is a heterosexual woman whose sexual involvement with
another woman is explained as a response t o the lack of available
male partners; in other words, her same-sex activity is interpreted as
a situational adaptation of her true heterosexual drive. Elsewhere, I
have discussed the extent t o which each of these forms of situational
homosexuality can or cannot be appropriately considered bisexuality,
taking into consideration various lay and scientific definitions of
bisexuality, ethnic and social class differences in the conceptualization of sexual orientation, and the various motivations of individuals
engaged in different types of situational homosexuality (Rust, 2000b).
Similarly, Hewitt (1998) argued for the recognition of bisexuals,
experimental hom~sexuals,~
and situational homosexuals as distinct, scientifically useful categories. But in the 1960s and 1970s,
research on situational homosexuality-not bisexuality-flourished
amid the popular cultural construction of bisexuality as chic. Both
bisexual chic and situational homosexuality characterize bisexual
behavior as same-sex behavior engaged in by essentially heterosexual
individuals under certain extenuating circumstances, in keeping with
the cultural belief that there are only two true forms of sexuality.
Bisexual chic is same-sex behavior engaged in by heterosexuals in a
cultural milieu favoring sexual experimentation, whereas situational
homosexuality is homosexuality engaged in by heterosexuals in circumstances restricting heterosexual expression.
During this period, a few authors argued for the recognition of
bisexuality per se by social science researchers. Mary McIntosh,
3 F ~examples
r
of research on same-sex behavior among male prisoners, see Bowker
(1980), Carroll (1977), Davis (1968, 1970), Feldman (1984), Johnson (19711, Kirkham
(1971), Lockwood (19801, Nacci (1978), Nacci and Kane (19841, Scacco (19751, Schofield
(1965), Tewksbury (1989a, 1989b), and Wooden and Parker (1982). For research on samesex behavior among women in prison, see Burkhart (1973/1996), Freedman (19961, Giallombardo (1966), Propper (1978, 1981), and Ward and Kassebaum (1964, 1965).
For reviews of the literature on same-sex male prostitution see Coleman (19891, Pleak
and Meyer-Bahlburg (1990), and Rust (2000b); for examples of scholarly treatment of
same-sex prostitution, including characterization as situational homosexuality versus
bisexuality, see Allen (1980), Boles and Elifson (19941, Boyer (19891, Calhoun (19921,
Earls and David (19891, Hoffman (1972), Janus, Scanlon, and Price (19841, Morse, Simon,
Osofsky, Balson, and Gaumer (1991), Simon, Morse, Osofsky and Balson (19941, Visano
(19901, Weisberg (19851, and Yates, MacKenzie, Pennbridge, and Swofford (19911.
190
P. RUST
whose The Homosexual Role (1968) was ahead of its time in many
ways, suggested that the situational homosexuality studied by her
contemporaries should be understood as bisexuality. Coons (1972)
and Blumstein and Schwartz (1977) argued that ambisexuality, a
terminologic preference these three authors shared, should not be
reduced t o heterosexuality and/or homosexuality. Director of the psychiatric division of a student health center, Coons hoped t o encourage
a professional acceptance of unique sexual adaptations that would
increase the quality and depth . . . of human relationships with both
sexes (p. 144).This view was ahead of its time in terms of acknowledging bisexuality as irreducible t o heterosexuality and homosexuality, but it was in keeping with the sexual liberatory bisexual chic
approach t o sexual expression characteristic of the 1970s. Blumstein
and Schwartz, along with Klein, are pioneers in the study of bisexuality. Blumstein and Schwartz argued that bisexuality should be studied i n its own right, conducted research specifically focused o n
bisexuals, and included recognition of bisexuality in their work on
other topics (e.g., 1976a, 1976b). Klein developed the Klein Sexual
Orientation Grid (KSOG) and characterized bisexuality as a concept
of one hundred percent intimacy, which he described as the ability to
be intimate with others without restrictions such a s gender. He
argued that the existence of bisexuality threatens dichotomous constructions of sexuality and that it is denied because a threat is best
dealt with if it is dismissable (1978, p. 9). Later, Klein became the
founding Editor of the Journal of Bisexuality.
In the 1 9 8 0 ~social
~
scientific research on bisexuality paralleled
popular fears of bisexuals as the gateway through which HIV would
pass to the heterosexual population. A search of any social scientific
database using the keyword bisexual reveals explosive growth in the
number of articles published during the 198Os, most involving HIVrelated research questions. Although Reisss (1961) (The Social Integration of Queers and Peers and Humphreys Tearoom D-ade (1970)
had already uncovered the worlds of male juvenile delinquent prostitutes with male clients and of married men whose unsuspecting families do not know they visit public rest rooms for sex with men, these
phenomena received renewed scientific attention in the 1980s (Rust,
2000b). Suddenly, bisexuality was not just a threat to a dichotomous
understanding of sexuality t h a t could be handled via denial; it
became a t h r e a t t o public h e a l t h t h a t could be addressed only
through recognition. Many researchers adopted the public perception
of bisexuals as a bridge for the transmission of HIV to the heterosexual population. For example, Morse, Simon, Balson, and Osofsky
191
(1992) described male prostitutes as a vector for transmission of HIV

infection (p. 348) and were particularly concerned about their bisexual or heterosexual customers because they could spread HIV to
their female partners and into the more mainstream heterosexual
population (p. 356). I n contrast, McKirnan, Stokes, Doll, a n d
Burzette (1995) saw bisexual men themselves as victims of HIV, no
less than their heterosexual partners.
In HIV epidemiological literature, the trend toward recognition of
bisexuality during the 1980s and into the 1990s is illustrated by
changes in the terms researchers used to describe their samples. Initially, researchers described their subjects as gay men; along with
the general public, researchers perceived gay men as the population at risk for HIV infection. In the mid- t o late-l980s, gay men
was replaced by the descriptors gay and bisexual men or homosexualmisexual men; this shift did not reflect interest in bisexuality
per se, but rather a recognition that many men who engage in samesex behavior do not identify as gay and a belief that both gay and
bisexual men are epidemiologically interesting because of their common same-sex behavior rather than for anything that would differentiate one from the other, such a s self-identity o r heterosexual
behavior. In 1986, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shifted its
public educational emphasis from who is at risk t o risky behaviors,
and gay and bisexual men gradually gave way t o the more accurate
descriptor men who have sex with men (MSM). At the same time,
however, researchers began t o realize that the characteristics that
distinguish bisexual from gay men-self-identity and heterosexual
activity-are, in fact, relevant in HIV epidemiology. Earlier public
messages aimed at educating gay men about safe sex had failed t o
reach homosexually active self-identified bisexuals and heterosexuals. The CDC found that 25% of seropositive male blood donors who
reported having had male-male sex self-identified as heterosexual
(Myers, 1991), and in December, 1992, a World Health Organization
investigation into the role of bisexuality in HIV epidemiology concluded that bisexual self-identity is important t o consider in the
development of appropriate HIV/AIDS prevention messages and
that bisexual behavior is of direct relevance t o HIV/AIDS transmission (p. 2). Thereafter, the phrase gay and bisexual men returned
with a new meaning, and an increasing number of HIV-related studies distinguished bisexual and homosexual subjects by behavior
and/or identity, either comparing them t o each other or focusing
specifically on bisexuals (e.g., Adam, Sears, & Schellenberg, 2000;
Doll, Petersen, White, Johnson, & Ward, 1992; McKirnan et al.,
192
P. RUST
1995; Rotheram-Borus, Marelich, & Srinivasan, 1999; RotheramBorus, Rosario, et al., 1994; Schilder et al., 1999).4
Also in the 1980s, undoubtedly encouraged both by the growth of gay
liberation and fear of AIDS, married men and others who had concealed
their attractions for their own gender began t o acknowledge these
attractions. Some sought counseling, sparking a flurry of articles written by clinicians. For example, Coleman (1985a, 1985b, 1989) and Wolf
(1985) discussed the issues that arise in marriages in which one partner
is bisexual, lesbian, or gay. The situational homosexuals of the 1970s
were replaced by heterosexually married gay and bisexual men and
lesbians as research subjects. The intelligibility of the oxymoronic
phrase heterosexually married gay m a n reflects the convoluted process
of social construction that produced contemporary concepts of sexuality,
a process that continued with the coining of mixed orientation marriage to denote a marriage between individuals of differing sexual orientations (e.g., Collins & Zimmerman, 1983; Matteson, 1985). Between
1978 and 1991, at least 10 books were published on mixed orientation
marriages and approximately 20 journal articles discussed psychosocial
issues arising in marriages involving a gay, lesbian, or bisexual partner
4The situation regarding HIV infection among Women who have Sex with Women
(WSW) is very different. Although in the public eye of the 1980s, lesbians were as tainted
by the spectre of HIV as gay men, among researchers, the apparently low to nonexistent
rate of female-female infection led to a lack of research into HIV among lesbians and a
feeling of safety among lesbians themselves (Cole & Cooper, 1990-1991; Richardson, 2000;
Rust, 2000b). A popular joke in the 1980s, if HIV is Gods curse on gay men, then lesbians must be the chosen people, illustrates lesbians sense of invulnerability. More
recently, there is growing evidence that seropositivity rates are higher among WSWs than
among women who have had only heterosexual contact (e.g., Bevier, Chiasson, Heffernan,
& Castro, 1995; Friedman, Jose, & Deren, 1995; International Medical News Group, 2001;
Lemp et al., 1995; Norman et al., 1996; Stevens, 1994; Young, Weissman, & Cohen, 1992).
Evidence suggests that WSW are a t increased risk of HIV infection not because of their
involvements with other women but because they have a greater number of other risk factors, such as more male sex partners than women who have had only male sex partners,
greater likelihood of having exchanged sex for drugs o r money, having used injection
drugs themselves, and having had sex with injection drug users and bisexual men (Bevier
et al., 1995; Gonzales et al., 1999; Young, Friedman, Case, Asencio, & Clatts, 2000). The
association between having had sex with women and having these HIV risk factors does
not imply a causal relationship; more likely, a n underlying correlate such as a willingness
to engage in socially proscribed behaviors explains the pattern. Consistent with this
explanation, Stokes e t al. (1993) reported that unconventional heterosexual behavior,
such as oral sex, might also be more common among bisexuals. Bevier et al. (1995) found
via regression analysis that the increased HIV risk of WSW was entirely explained by factors other than sex with women; after controls, the partial correlation with having had
female sex partners was negative, supporting the view that HIV transmission between
women is exceedingly rare and that having sex with women is not itself causally related
to increased risk of HIV infection.
193
(Rust, 2000b; see also Coleman, 1989; Hays & Samuels, 1989; Ross,
1989, for reviews), compared to a handful either before (e.g., Allen,
1961; Bieber, 1969; Imielinski, 1969; Rifkin, 1968; Ross, 1971, 1972) or
since (e.g., Buxton, 2001; Joseph, 1997; Klein & Schwartz, 2001; Malcolm, 2000; Matteson, 1999; Peterson, 2001). Approximately half of the
articles published during this 1980s peak of interest in mixed orientation marriages appeared in a single 1985 issue of the Journal of Homosexuality (Rust, 2000b; see also Chung & Katayama, 1996). The fact
that the theme of this issue was not mixed orientation marriages, but
the broader topic of research and theory on bisexuality highlights the
central role played by research on mixed orientation marriages in the
social scientific study of bisexuality during this period.
As in HIV epidemiological literature, the trend toward increasing
recognition of bisexuality over the course of the decade can be seen in the
literature on mixed orientation marriages, male-male prostitution, and
prison sexuality-patterns of sexual behavior that had been cast as situational homo~exuality~
in the 1960s and 1970s. In many 1980s publications on mixed marriages, subjects are referred to collectively as gays
and bisexuals and the terms homosexuality and bisexuality are used
interchangeably. However, in 1987 Wolf reported an increase in men coming to his clinical practice seeking support for issues specifically related to
bisexuality. They sought contact with other bisexuals, support for their
bisexuality in the face of prejudice from both heterosexuals and
lesbiandgay men, and counseling for their anxiety over the possibility of
HIV infection. The same trend can be seen in comparisons of earlier to
later studies; for example, McConaghys (1978) subjects had all sought
therapy to reduce their homosexual feelings in an effort to save their
marriages, whereas 92% of Brownfains (1985) subjects, although hesitantly, identified themselves as bisexual or gay and generally felt positively about their bisexuaVgay selves; many had experienced conflict over
whether and how to tell their wives. Some researchers distinguished
bisexual spouses from gay and lesbian spouses and explored the different
issues and outcomes facing marriages depending on the orientation of the
nonheterosexual spouse. For example, Brownfain (1985; cf. Matteson,
1985) found that marriages in which the husband identified himself as
bisexual were more likely to remain intact than marriages in which the
husband identified as gay, and Myers (1991) focused specifically on the
issues facing the bisexual husband who becomes infected with HIV. The
trend toward a greater tendency to refer to married men and women with
same-sex interests as bisexuals continued during the 1990s and early
2000s (e.g., Buxton, 2001; Klein & Schwartz, 2001; Matteson, 1999).
With regard to the study of male-male prostitution, in contrast to ear-
194
P. RUST
lier studies of juvenile delinquent prostitutes and hustlers who aggressively defended their heterosexual identities (e.g., Hoffman, 1972; Reiss,
1961; Ross, 1959), Pleak and Meyer-Bahlburg noted that during the
1970s and 1980s investigators of male prostitutes have found increasing
proportions of male prostitutes to be bisexual and homosexual (1990, p.
577; e.g., Furnald, 1978; Lauderback & Waldorf, 1989; Weisberg, 1985).
Boyer (1989) characterized earlier research as the product of a mutual
denial of homosexuality by researchers and their subjects, and Pleak
and Meyer-Bahlburg attributed the change to increasing willingness of
prostitutes to identify as bisexual or gay, greater accuracy in researchers
assessments, and changes in sampling methods (cf. Earls & David,
1989). The same trend toward increasing recognition of bisexuality can
also be seen in the literature on prison sexuality. For example, Alarid
(2000) distinguished bisexual from gay inmates and described differences in their sexual experiences while in prison, and Lichtenstein
(2000) discussed prison sexuality as a factor contributing to unprotected
bisexual activity among Black men in Alabama.
By 1998, the number of articles published annually and contained
in academic social scientific and psychological databases with the keyword bisexual grew t o over 200. The types of topics represented
among articles published in the 1990s and early 2000s also broadened
to include, for example, studies of body image, health behaviors, social
support networks, and the effects of hate crimes (e.g., Allen, Glicken,
Beach, & Naylor, 1998; Cochran, Mays, & Bowen, 2001; Grossman,
DAugelli, & Hershberger, 2000; Gruskin, Hart, & Gordon, 2001;
Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Ludwig & Brownell, 1999; Myers, Taub,
& Morris, 1999; Rankow & Tessaro, 1998). It is still the case, however,
that few of the articles discoverable in a search for the term bisexual
report findings specifically pertaining to bisexuals. In most articles
based on empirical research, the authors simply acknowledged that
bisexuals were included in their samples of lesbians and/or gay men
(e.g., Holtzen, 1994; Kruks, 1991; Laner, 1977; Ludwig & Brownell,
1999) by adding and bisexual to their sample descriptions and keyword lists. Some researchers distinguished bisexual subjects from
other nonheterosexuals to see whether their findings differed for
bisexuals. Such analyses are often preliminary or otherwise limited
because of small numbers of self-identified bisexuals in samples
drawn primarily for research on lesbians and gay men, or via lesbiadgay community venues (e.g., Diamant, Wold, Spritzer, & Gelberg,
2000; Herek et al., 1999; Hollander, 2000; Koh & Diamant, 2000;
Moore & Waterman, 1999; Morrow & Allsworth, 2000; Rothblum &
Factor, 2001; Turell, 2000; Valanis et al., 2000).
195
However, in the wake of a growing bisexual political movement,

increased availability of bisexual subjects, and increased awareness of
bisexuals concerns in the 199Os, more researchers began studying questions with particular relevance to bisexuality and drawing either samples of bisexuals or samples of lesbiandgay men and bisexuals designed
for the express purpose of comparison. Researchers also increasingly
focused not on heterosexuals concerns about bisexuals, such as the
spread of HIV and the fate of mixed orientation marriages, but on bisexuals own concerns, such as the sexual and social behavior of bisexuals,
the development of bisexual communities and culture, and the experiences of bisexuals in a gayktraight world (e.g., Kennedy & Doll, 2001;
Taub, 1999). Applying these findings, clinical psychologists published
advice for their colleagues in their efforts to help bisexual clients grapple with that world (e.g., S. Dworkin, 2001; Guidry, 1999; Hayes &
Hagedorn, 2001; Nichols, 1988). This shift in research questions and
applications paralleled the shift that had occurred in the social scientific literature on lesbians and gay men during the 1970s, following the
birth of the modern lesbian and gay liberation movement, from studies
of the etiology of homosexuality to studies of lesbians and gay mens
lived experiences, the coming out process, and social attitudes. During
the 199Os, no less than 15 books were published on bisexuality in the
social and psychological sciences and humanities, including Dual
Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality (Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor,
1994), Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of a n Invisible Minority
(Firestein, 1996), and Bisexualities: The Ideology and Practice of Sexual
Contact with Both Men and Women, (Haeberle & Gindorf, 1998). This
trend continued with the turn of the millennium, including Bisexuality
in the United States: A Social Science Reader (Rust, ZOOOb), A History of
Bisexuality (Angelides, 20011, and the Journal of Bisexuality, which
began publishing in 2001.
New Models of Sexuality: ReconceptualizingBisexuality

Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, social scientists who
criticized research for its neglect of bisexuality offered alternative ways
of conceptualizing sexuality in the hope of paving the way for research
on bisexuality. The Kinsey scale, in both original and modified forms, is
still the most widely used and best known of these alternatives (Kinsey,
Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). Many researchers use multiple Kinsey scales
to represent various dimensions of sexual orientation, including sexual
behavior, sexual fantasy, sexual attraction, and sexual identity (e.g.,
Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Shively, Rudolph, & De Cecco, 1978; Weinberg
et al., 1994). The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG) includes 21
196
P. RUST
scales, representing seven dimensions of sexual orientation on which

subjects are asked to rate their past, present, and ideal selves (Klein,
1993; Klein, Sepekoff & Wolf, 1985). These dimensions include sexual
attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference,
social preference, sexual lifestyle, and self-identification. Other scalar
models include Storms (1978; see also M. Diamond, 1998) gynoeroticism and androeroticism scales which emphasize the sex to which one
is attracted (female, male) rather than the relationship of that sex to
ones own sex (same, different). Shively and De Cecco (1977) proposed
separate scales representing degrees of homosexuality and heterosexuality, thus removing the implication, based on the conceptualization of
men and women as opposite genders, that same- and other-sex attractions must vary conversely with each other (cf. Evan & Zeiss, 1985, Van
Wyk & Geist, 1984). Gonsiorek, Sell, and Weinrich (1995) added a third
scale representing degrees of bisexuality.
Although these models of sexual orientation succeed, in varying
degrees, in challenging the heterosexualhomosexual dichotomy to make
space for bisexuality, they all remain predicated on other dichotomous
assumptions that form part of the sedgender system (Rubin, 1975; see
also Fausto-Sterling, 1993; Freimuth & Hornstein, 1982; Lorber, 1996).
These include the assumptions that gender (man, woman) and sex (male,
female) are dichotomous and perfectly correlated with each other (man =
male, woman = female). Transgenderists, including crossdressers and
gender blenders, belie the assumption of two clearly defined and distinct
genders; intersexuals belie the assumption that there are two clearly
defined and distinct sexes; and preoperative transsexuals and passing
women belie the assumption that man = male and woman = female.
Although one might argue that these individuals are mentally diseased,
physically defected, and/or rare, requiring treatment rather than a cultural and scientific paradigm shift, such arguments do not help us accurately describe the sexual orientation of a female-to-male transsexual
who is attracted to women both before and after his surgery, or the wife
of a crossdresser who comes to bed dressed in a teddy.
Noting that a sexual classification system based on a simplistic distinction between male men and female women has limited utility, in a
development Coleman (1998) called the third paradigm shift in modern conceptualizations of sexuality, several theorists questioned the central role played by dichotomous sedgender in sexual classification
models. Some argued that the emphasis on sex and/or gender is appropriate but that sexuality should be reconceptualized based on a more
complex understanding of sex and gender (e.g., Freimuth & Hornstein,
1982; Kaplan & Rogers, 1984; Ross & Paul, 1992; Rust, 1995a, 2000b;
197
Sedgwick, 1990; Weinrich, 1988). Others argued for the dereification of

sedgender as the defining characteristic of sexual attraction. For example, Califia (19831, Sedgwick (19901, Ross and Paul (19921, and I (Rust,
1995a, 2000b) argued that many characteristics other than sex or gender might attract one individual to another, including personality, eye
color, skin tone, social class, and social setting. Ross and Paul (1992),
Bhugra and de Silva (1998), and I (1995a) presented findings regarding
bisexuals descriptions of the influence of nongender characteristics on
their attractions toward others. As recognized in the field of sexual
physiology (e.g., Rowland, 19951, nongender characteristics matter to
individuals of all sexual orientations. For example, a heterosexual
woman is not attracted to all men; she is more attracted to some than
others because of their other characteristics. The difference between
heterosexuals, lesbians, and gay men on one hand-collectively referred
to as monosexuals by bisexual activists because their sexualities are
directed toward a single sedgender (cf. Evans, 1993; Gagnon, 1977)and bisexuals on the other hand, is that for monosexuals gender is a
necessary criterion, whereas for bisexuals it is not.
In fact, both Ross and Paul (1992) and I (Rust, 1995a, 2001b, 2002)
found evidence that, at least among some bisexuals, gender is not a criterion at all. Ross and Paul argued that the discovery of one or more
bisexuals [who] select sexual partners based on variables unrelated to
gender would confirm that there are bisexual individuals for whom
gender is apparently immaterial (p. 1285). They recruited three women
and six men, all white, from a bisexual organization in San Francisco in
1984, to whom they administered a repertory grid (Kelly, 1955) which
elicit[s] the cognitive categories used by an individual to organize personal perceptions (p. 1285). Utilizing a masculine-feminine dimension
to assess the role of gender in respondents constructs of their most and
least preferred male and female sex partners, they found that, for seven
of nine respondents, gender was not among the dimensions which maximally described respondents most preferred sexual partners. The
authors concluded that it may be appropriate t o conceptualize some
bisexual people as making choices not on the basis of gender, but on the
basis of personality or physical attributes not necessarily associated
with gender (pp. 1288-1289). In 1994-1996, I recruited over 900 men
and women to complete a self-administered questionnaire about their
sexual experiences, perceptions, and beliefs as part of the International
Study of Bisexual Identities, Communities, Ideologies, and Politics
(IBICIP). The sample includes individuals whose sexual histories
include any degree of both same- and other-sex sexual or romantic contacts, feelings of sexual attraction, and/or bisexual identity. Respon-
198
P. RUST
dents were recruited through conferences on sexuality, meetings of

bisexual and LesBiGay (Lesbian/Bisexual/Gay) organizations, mail
solicitation of bisexual and LesBiGay organizations, advertisements in
bisexual newsletters and mainstream alternative newspapers, the
internet, and referrals. Two thirds of respondents resided in the United
States at the time of the survey. I asked IBICIP respondents to rate the
separate importance of biological sex and gender as factors in their feelings of attraction toward others. Using a 7-point scale, 4% and 2%,
respectively, of self-identified bisexual women and men rated gender as
irrelevant; 17% and 12%, respectively, rated biological sex as irrelevant (Rust, 1995a, 2002). In response to a question regarding the meaning of their bisexual identities, 9% said that gender is irrelevant, and
answers to hypothetical vignettes and open-ended questions confirmed
that at least some self-identified bisexual individuals perceive that their
sexual attractions are, in fact, nongendered.
In the culmination of the contemporary paradox of bisexuality, when
bisexuals who experience nongendered attractions are conceptualized
within a gender-based dichotomous sexual classification system as a
combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, bisexuality is constructed in terms of the one characteristic that does not define it: gender (Rust, 2000a, p. 209). Ross and Paul (1992; see also Kauth &
Kalichman, 1995) suggested modeling sexual orientation using a dimension representing the importance of gender; on this scale, heterosexuals,
lesbians, and gay men who confine their sexual interests to one gender
only occupy one extreme, bisexuals who are attracted t o others with
complete disregard for gender occupy the other extreme, and bisexuals
who are attracted to the genders in different ways or for whom gender
is relevant but less important than other personal characteristics (e.g.,
Califia 1979/1994) would fall along the midrange. Using this model in
which gender is not definitive, all bisexuals-those for whom gender is
relevant and those for whom it is not-can be represented. The concept
of nongender-based sexuality is not new. For example, in fetishismthe
fetishistic object might be nonhuman and nongendered (e.g., Gosselin &
Wilson, 1984; Herdt, 1984), and certain paraphiliac sexual disorders
such as voyeurism are defined without reference to gender in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders N of the American
Psychiatric Association (1994). However, the concept of a nonpathological form of nongendered sexuality, existing as a form of sexual orientation, is new. I have argued that taken to an extreme, this process might
end in the reconceptualization of heterosexuality and homosexuality as
forms of gender fetishism (2000b, p. 53 n9). This would complete Colemans (1998) third paradigm shift in the conceptualization of bisexual-
199
ity; Ross and Pauls model recognizes that some bi-sexuals are not
hybrid homoheterosexuals who are attracted to men and women, but
sexualswho are attracted to people.
Another approach taken by some theorists attempting t o provide a
basis for more accurate research on bisexuality has been to develop
typologies of bisexuality. Some authors classify bisexuals on the basis of
their patterns of sexual contact with women and men. For example
Klein (1978, 1993) distinguished transitional, historical, and sequential
types of bisexuality. Transitional bisexuality occurs when an individual
uses bisexuality-defined in terms of any or all of the seven dimensions
of the KSOG-as a bridge to change their sexual orientation from one
end of the continuum to the other (1993, p. 20). Historical bisexuality
describes individuals whose sexual histories include experiences or fantasies contrary to their current, predominantly hetero- or homosexual
lifestyle. Klein defined sequential bisexuality in terms of consecutive
relationships with male and with female partners over time such that
at any given moment the bisexual is involved with only one gender.
However, Williams (1999) prefers the term serial bisexuality for this
type, reserving the term sequential bisexuality for homosexual behavior
occurring during puberty as a rite of passage to adulthood in some cultures. These types are further distinguished from concurrent bisexuality, in which an individual maintains relationships with both men and
women at the same time, as well as from experimental and situational
homo-, hetero-, or bisexuality (Fox, 1996; Klein, 1993; Williams, 1999).
Other authors focus on the context of bisexual behavior. For example,
Boulton (1991; see also Gagnon, 1989; Ross, 1991) distinguished bisexuality proper from adolescent bisexuality, married homosexual men,
prostitution, and situational homosexuality.
Taywaditep and Stokes (1998) used cluster analysis to identify eight
types (labelled A through H) of behaviorally bisexual men, using a sample ( N = 535) recruited from various community venues, including
newspaper ads, bars, street fairs, and referrals. The eight types were
distinguished by different combinations of self-identity, sexual fantasy
content, and history of sexual involvement with male and female sex
partners. For example, two types were characterized by gay identity
and predominantly homosexual fantasies; type A men were further
characterized by a high likelihood of involvement in a current relationship with a man and fewer male partners (on average 21.18 lifetime
and 2.84 in 6 months) than type B men (90.00 lifetime and 18.96 in 6
months). Types C and D were characterized by straight identity, and the
remaining four types were characterized by bisexual identity. Of these,
type E men preferred women and reported the highest numbers of
P. RUST
200
female sex partners (average 43.59 lifetime and 6.32 in 6 months),

whereas the fantasies of type F men indicated equal preference for
males and females. Type G men reported a high frequency of sexual
contact with males but relatively few male partners, a high rate of
involvement in a current relationship with a man and low rates of heterosexual involvement, compared to a higher rate of involvement with
women among type H men.
Research Findings
Although excluding bisexuals from research on lesbians and gay men
and lumping bisexuals together with lesbians and gay men are still
common practices (Chung & Katayama, 1996; Doll, Myers, Kennedy, &
Allman, 1997; Sell & Petrulio, 1996), increasingly researchers are distinguishing bisexual subjects and presenting findings specific to bisexuality. To date, areas that have been sufficiently investigated to warrant
review include the prevalence of bisexuality, prejudice and discrimination against bisexuals, sexual behavior patterns and relationship ideals,
and the development and meaning of bisexual identity.
The Prevalence of Bisexuality

The quality of estimates regarding the prevalence of bisexuality has
increased markedly since the mid-1980s. Prior to that time, the best
information available was based on several nonrepresentative surveys
with acknowledged sample biases, most notably the 1948 and 1953 Kinsey reports (Kinsey et al., 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard,
1953). Since then, a number of national probability surveys have either
focused on sexual behavior or included questions about sexual behavior
as part of a broader research agenda. In general, more recent estimates
are lower than the earlier, less reliable estimates. Two findings remain
consistent, however: First, because sexual orientation is multidimensional, estimates of bisexual prevalence vary depending on which
dimension is assessed and, second, bisexuality is more prevalent than
exclusive homosexuality when assessed in terms of sexual attraction,
erotic responsiveness, or lifetime sexual behavior.
The biases involved in the Kinsey samples, as well as their effects on
the findings produced, are well documented and understood (Cochran,
Mosteller, & Tukey, 1953; Gagnon & Simon, 1987; Pomeroy, 1972; Terman, 1948; Turner, Miller, & Moses, 1989; Wallis, 1949). Relevant here
are the overrepresentation of sexually active people in general and the
specific overrepresentation of people with same-sex experiences and
erotic responses due to the recruitment of respondents from gay communities and prison populations. After adjusting for the latter bias, Van
201
Wyk and Geist (1984; see also Gagnon & Simon, 1973) reported that
1.8% of women and 4.7% of men in the Kinsey samples scored 4.01-6.00
on the Kinsey overt sociosexual experience scale, whereas 4.1% of
women and 9.6% of men scored K = 0.005-4.000, indicating that bisexual experience is more common than predominantly homosexual experience. If those with predominantly same-sex erotic response (i.e., scores
4.01-5.995) were grouped with bisexuals instead of with exclusive homosexuals, the greater prevalence of bisexuality in comparison to homosexuality would be even more striking.
The Kinsey reports are most famous among laypersons as the source
of the oft-cited statistic 10% of the population is gay. There is, in fact,
a 10% statistic reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, referring to the percentage of men who are more or less exclusively homosexual (i.e., rate 5 or 6) for at least three years between the ages of 16
and 55 (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 651). However, Voeller (1990) reported
that he calculated the statistic based on published data from both the
H u m a n Male and the H u m a n Female volumes for the purpose of
demonstrating the potential political clout of the gay and lesbian population (see also Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994, p. 289,
Footnote 7). In keeping with Voellers objectives, the 10% statistic is
often understood by laypeople to refer to individuals who are self-identified as gay or lesbian and form a politically aware interest group. This
interpretation is inaccurate for two reasons: First, Kinsey and his colleagues assessed sexual behavior and erotic response, not sexual selfidentity or political self-consciousness, and, second, regardless of which
story about its origin one prefers, the statistic includes individuals with
both other-sex and same-sex experiences and erotic responses (i.e.,
bisexuals) as well as exclusive homosexuals.
Other nonrepresentative studies offering estimates of the prevalence
of bisexuality include a study commissioned by Playboy (Hunt, 1974), a
study conducted by Playboy (Cook, 19831, and the popularly acclaimed
Janus and Janus (1993) study. The sample for the first Playboy study
was drawn by Research Guild, Inc., an independent research organization. Respondents were randomly selected using probability sampling in
24 of the United States, but the study cannot be considered representative because only one in five individuals selected agreed to participate.
Hunt found that, after the onset of adolescence, 17-18% of men in this
study had had homosexual experiences, and he drew on other sources to
assert that 2-3% of men are exclusively homosexual. This leads to the
conclusion that 14-16% of men have postpubertal bisexual experiences.
A figure of 10-12% for single women can be similarly derived from
Hunts study which, like the estimate for men, far exceeds the 2-3%
202
P. RUST
estimated for exclusive homosexuality (Rust, 2000b). The second Playboy study used a sample drawn from the magazines readership; the
sample contains three times as many bisexual men and women as it
does gay men or lesbians. However, the authors did not describe the
means by which they classified respondents as bisexual, gay, or lesbian,
and it is likely that the readership of Playboy is biased away from individuals with stronger or exclusive same-sex interests, thus inflating the
prevalence of bisexuality in comparison to exclusive homosexuality.
The Janus and Janus (1993) study caused political turmoil in the lesbian and gay community because it was the first well-publicized evidence that the politically useful Kinsey 10%statistic is an overestimate.
They reported that 3% of women and 5% of men identified themselves
as bisexual and that 2% and 4% identified as lesbianlgayhomosexual.
With regard to sexual behavior, although 17% of women and 22% of
men had had same-sex experiences, only 5% of women and 9% of men
said they had frequent or ongoing same-sex experiences. These findings
were not crosstabulated with respondents other-sex experiences, so
estimates of bisexual behavior are unavailable.
Recent national probability studies, providing more reliable estimates of the sexual feelings and behaviors of the United States population, include the General Social Survey (GSS) and the National Health
and Social Life Survey (NHSLS; Laumann et al., 1994). The GSS, an
annual survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center,
began including questions about sexual behavior in 1988. GSS data
have been analyzed and compared to findings from other surveys by
several authors (Binson et al., 1995; Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon,
1989; Rogers & Turner, 1991; Rust, 2000b; Smith, 1991). The NHSLS,
undertaken in 1992 after political obstacles to funding were circumvented, used multistage area probability sampling and focused primarily on research questions related to sexuality (Laumann et al., 1994).
Findings from these studies show that estimates of the prevalence of
bisexuality depend not only on which dimension of sexuality is assessed
but also on the period of time taken into consideration and the cutpoints used to distinguish homosexuality from bisexuality. Depending,
therefore, on the dimension, time period, and cut-points chosen, bisexuality can be said to be either more or less prevalent than homosexuality.
When lifetime sexual behavior is taken into account, bisexuality is more
common than exclusive homosexuality, but shorter time periods yield
lower estimates of bisexual behavior. For example, in the NHSLS, 3.3%
of women and 5.8% of men had had both male and female sex partners
since puberty, compared to 0.2% of women and 0.6% of men who had
had only same-sex partners. However, within the past year, 0.3% of
203
women and 0.7% of men had had both male and female partners,
whereas 1%of women and 2% of men had had only same-sex partners
(Laumann et al., 1994). Using GSS data, Rogers and Turner (1991)
reported that, since age 18, 91.2% of men had had only female partners,
4.5% had had male and female partners, 0.7% had had only male partners, and 3.7% had not had any sex partners. With regard to feelings of
sexual attraction, bisexuality is again more common than exclusive
homosexuality; in the NHSLS 4.1% of women and 3.9% of men indicated on a 5-point scale that they were sexually attracted t o both
women and men, whereas only 0.3% of women and 2.4% of men rated
themselves exclusively attracted to members of their own sex. Bisexual
identity, however, is less common than lesbian or gay identity; 0.5% of
women and 0.8% of men reported bisexual self-identities, compared to
0.9% of women and 2% of men who reported lesbian, gay, or homosexual
identities (Laumann et al., 1994). These rates of bisexual self-identification are lower than rates of bisexual attraction by a factor of five among
men and a factor of eight among women (Rust, 2000b).
Prejudice and Discrimination Against Bisexuals: Biphobia and

Monosexism
Bisexuals, like lesbians and gay men, experience antigay prejudice
and discrimination. In addition, there are forms of prejudice and discrimination unique to bisexuals. To assess attitudes toward, and beliefs
about, bisexuals, Mohr and Rochlen (1999) developed the Attitudes
Regarding Bisexuality Scale (ARBS) using a sample of 251 lesbians and
gay men aged 15-52 recruited via e-mail solicitation of lesbian and gay
student organizations at universities in the United States and Canada.
A principal-axis factor analysis of 80 items revealed two distinct and
interpretable principal factors, which were then further tested on a
sample of 288 self-described mostly heterosexual or exclusively heterosexual undergraduate students recruited from three courses at two
different mid-Atlantic institutions. The first factor represents beliefs
regarding bisexuality as a stable, legitimate sexual identity and consists of 10 items including most women who call themselves bisexual
are temporarily experimenting with their sexuality, and most men
who claim to be bisexual are in denial about their true sexual orientation. The second factor represents tolerance of, and moral attitudes
toward, bisexuality and consists of eight items, including bisexual men
are sick and the growing acceptance of female bisexuality indicates a
decline in American values. In a third study of 305 heterosexual undergraduates, Mohr and Rochlen found that attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men were strongly related to attitudes toward bisexuals as mea-
204
P. RUST
sured by the ARBS. However, Mohr, Israel, and Sedlacek (2001) found
that, even after controlling for attitudes toward lesbians and gay men,
the clinical judgments of 97 students in graduate counselor training
programs regarding a fictitious bisexual client were related to their attitudes toward bisexuality, thus demonstrating the existence of attitudes
toward bisexuals that are unique to bisexuality and not explainable or
reducible to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.
To describe prejudice and discrimination specific to bisexuals, bisexual activists have coined the terms biphobia and monosexism, which are
analogous to the terms homophobia and heterosexism. Biphobia is used
by lay people to describe any form of prejudice against bisexuals,
although clinicians would interpret the term more specifically as fear
of bisexuals. Monosexism refers to any social structure, belief, o r
behavior that reflects or reinforces the dichotomous construction of heterosexuality and homosexuality (i.e., monosexualities) as the only legitimate forms of sexuality.
Political activist Robyn Ochs, who writes extensively about biphobia
and publishes in both academic and political activist venues, considers
bisexual invisibility a primary concern. Ochs argued that bisexual invisibility results from the popular disbelief in bisexuality as a legitimate
identity which discourages the perception of bisexuality (1996; also
Eliason, 2001; Randen, 2001; Steinman, 2001; Yoshino, 2000). For
example, most observers seeing a romantically involved man and
woman would assume that the couple, and the individual partners in it,
are heterosexual. Few observers would entertain the possibility that
one or both of the partners could be bisexual. Thus, a bisexual person in
a relationship with another person is perceived as either heterosexual
or lesbiadgay depending on the gender of herhis partner. S h e is invisible as a bisexual because s h e is not perceived as such. Even if an
observer is aware that the individual claims a bisexual identity, s h e is
still rendered invisible as a bisexual by a one drop rule analogous to
that applied t o racial classifications and by the invalidating beliefs
described earlier in this article.
This invisibility pressures bisexuals to classify themselves into, and
to behave in accordance with, either gay or straight categories; it is difficult to assert and to live in accordance with an identity that is continually denied or misperceived by others (Clausen, 1990; Clinton, 1996;
Kaahumanu, 1991; McLean, 2001). Several researchers, including
Blumstein and Schwartz (1977) and Weinberg et al. (1994), have found
patterns wherein individuals shift between lesbiadgay and heterosexual identities depending on the genders of their current partners, rather
than continually maintaining a bisexual identity in the face of others
205
disbelief. Sometimes the pressure to identify monosexually is made

explicit, as for example when women and men who identify as bisexual
are told they are going through a phase of coming out as lesbians or gay
men, that they suffer from internalized homophobia that prevents them
from acknowledging their true lesbian or gay sexuality, or that they are
clinging to partial heterosexuality to hang on to heterosexual cultural
privileges. They are told to make up their minds or to finish coming out
as lesbiadgay, and many bisexuals do so. On the other hand, it can also
be psychologically difficult to maintain a socially acceptable but egodystonic lesbian, gay, or heterosexual identity. Many potentially bisexual-identified individuals struggle to develop a sexual identity that is
both honest and socially workable. Several books by and for bisexuals
have anecdotally documented these effects of invisibility on bisexuals
(e.g., Bisexual Anthology Collective, 1995; Geller, 1990; George, 1993;
Hutchins & Kaahumanu, 1991; Rose & Stevens, 1996; Tucker, 1995;
Weise, 1992). In a 1999 panel discussion, seven individuals who had
been instrumental in the development of the bisexual community in
San Francisco since the 1960s discussed the influence invisibility had
had on their own lives and comings out, the ways invisibility had hindered and shaped the development of a bisexual community and political movement, and the fluctuating visibility and public image of the
bisexual community since the 1970s (A. Dworkin, 2001).
Bisexuals also experience distrust from both heterosexual society and
lesbiadgay communities. Bisexuality threatens the heterosexualhomosexual distinction that underlies both heterosexual and lesbiadgay
identities, a particularly salient threat to lesbians and gay men
involved in an identity-based political struggle for basic human rights
(Gamson, 1995; see also Ault, 1994; Heldke, 1997; OConnor, 1997;
Rust, 1993b, 1995b).5 The bisexual is seen as a double agent (Hemmings, 1993; see also Eadie, 1993; Rust, 1995b; Shuster, 1987) who
moves back and forth across the boundary between oppressor and
oppressed. Both other-sex and same-sex partners often shun bisexuals
because of political mistrust, fears of HIV, sexual stereotypes regarding
infidelity and inability to commit, and the fear that one cannot fully satisfy a bisexual sexually (Rust, 199513; Weinberg et al., 1994). Bisexuals
have struggled for recognition as a sexual minority along side lesbians
%ee Footnote 2 regarding lesbian attitudes toward bisexuals. For discussions of gay
ethnicity and the role of essentialist thinking in the undergirding of the lesbian and gay
identity and the lesbian and gay identity-based political movement, see Adam (1979,
1987), Epstein (1987), Faderman (1991), Seidman (1993), a n d Voeller (1990); cf.
Somerville (1996).
206
P. RUST
and gay men; the battle over the name of the Northampton, Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Pride March, the inclusion of the term bisexual
in one (Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay Studies conference followed by
exclusion in the next, and the cautious inclusion of the desexualized
term Bi in the 1993 National March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay,
and Bi Rights and Liberation are but a few examples that attracted
attention in the lesbian and gay-and bisexual-press (A. Dworkin,
2001; Garber, 1995; Humphrey, 1999; Rust, 1995b).
Some quantitative research has been done on the affective and cognitive components of heterosexuals, lesbians, and gay mens attitudes
toward bisexuals. In a study of 212 male and female undergraduate students at a large university, Istvan (1983) found that, among the 197
who described their sexual fantasies and overt activities as 90% or more
heterosexual, degree of prejudice toward bisexuals depended on how
homosexual the bisexuals were. After completing sexual experience
inventories and self-ratings of their own sexual orientations, Istvans
subjects were asked to examine inventories and self-ratings they were
told had been completed by other subjects and then to rate these subjects using the Interpersonal Judgment Scale (Byrne, 1971) and a Personality Impressions Scale. Istvan reported that heterosexual subjects
disliked bisexuals who were more than 50% homosexual as much as
they disliked exclusive homosexuals, but that bisexuals who were ((less
homosexual were disliked only slightly more than exclusive heterosexuals. A decade later, after the routes of HIV were discovered, Eliason
(1997) administered the Beliefs About Sexual Minorities Scale (Eliason
& Raheim, 1996) to 229 self-identified heterosexual college students
recruited from two undergraduate psychology courses. Subjects were
more likely to rate bisexual men and women (61%, 50%) than gay men
(43%) or lesbians (38%) as somewhat or very unacceptable, although
they were more likely to apply the very unacceptable category to men
(both bisexual and gay) than to women, whether bisexual or lesbian
(26%, 21% vs. 12%, 14%).
Spalding and Peplau (1997) and Eliason (2001) provided statistical
evidence of the content of heterosexuals stereotypes about bisexuals.
Most of these stereotypes pertain to bisexuals sexual behavior. Spalding and Peplau used a sample of 353 self-identified heterosexual undergraduate psychology students who were asked t o read vignettes
describing couples in which the sexual orientations of the partners were
systematically varied, and to rate the individuals on a number of 9point scales. The authors reported that subjects believed that bisexuals
are more likely than lesbians, gay men, or heterosexuals to infect a sex
partner with a sexually transmitted disease. Comparing bisexuals
207
other-sex relationships to heterosexuals other-sex relationships, subjects also believed that bisexuals are more likely t o be dating people
other than their partner and more likely to cheat on their partner; no
such difference was found in perceptions of bisexuals compared to lesbians or gay mens same-sex relationships. In other words, heterosexual subjects believed t h a t bisexuals a r e less monogamous t h a n
heterosexuals but no less monogamous than lesbians or gay men. Bisexuals were not perceived to be more likely to become bored with or leave
a relationship than either heterosexuals or lesbiandgay men.
Eliason (2001) prefers the term bi-negatiuity over biphobia. As part
of the study described above, she presented 23 statements pertaining
to stereotypes about bisexuals t o her sample of 229 heterosexual
undergraduate psychology students. She found higher rates of agreement than disagreement with statements that bisexuals have more
flexible attitudes about sex than heterosexuals (76% vs. 7%), that
bisexual rights are identical t o gay/lesbian rights (55% vs. 8%), and
that bisexuals are more likely to have simultaneous multiple partners
(39% vs. 33%). On the other hand, Eliason found heterosexuals more
likely to reject than to accept stereotypes that bisexuals are likely to
leave a partner for someone of the other sex and that bisexuals are
just going through a phase, and an even split over whether bisexuals
have more sex partners than heterosexuals and whether they spread
AIDS to heterosexuals. Perhaps Eliasons most striking finding, however, was the high percentage of respondents who answered dont
know to each item, particularly t o questions about whether bisexuals
have more sex partners t h a n heterosexuals or gays/lesbians and
whether bisexuals are more likely to leave for a partner of the other
sex (5667%). Eliason interpreted this finding as resulting from the
lack of a clear, shared definition of bisexuality. However, a selfreported lack of knowledge is a likely consequence of bisexual invisibility, that is, a dearth of contact with known bisexuals from whom
one might gain a sense of knowledge about bisexuality, and suggests
that Eliasons collegiate respondents were keeping open minds rather
than accept stereotypes about bisexuality.
In a sample of 527 self-identified lesbians and bisexual women, most
of whom resided in the midwestern United States in the mid-1980s
when they completed self-administered questionnaires including questions about their attitudes toward bisexuality, I found strong agreement
with a number of beliefs about bisexuals among the 346 lesbians. For
example, 79.4% of lesbians believed that bisexual identity is more likely
than lesbian identity to be transitional, that is, a phase in the coming
out process. High percentages of lesbians also believed that bisexuals
208
P. RUST
are more able (82.4%)and more willing (65.1%)than lesbians to pass as

heterosexual to avoid social repercussions, that lesbians should not
trust bisexual women as much as lesbians (52.5%), and that bisexual
women are more likely than lesbians to desert their female friends
(60.3%; Rust, 1993b). Ninety-six percent would prefer to date a lesbian
rather than a bisexual woman; three quarters said they would not date
a bisexual woman. Three quarters (74%) said they were more likely to
make friends with a lesbian than a bisexual woman, and 83% would
rather work with lesbians and not bisexual women if they were involved
in a gay rights campaign (Rust, 199513).
Mohr and Rochlen (19991, after developing the two-factor Attitudes
Regarding Bisexuality Scale, compared attitudes toward bisexuals
among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual men and women. The researchers
scored each item so that higher scores indicated greater belief in the
stability of bisexuality (Factor 1)and greater tolerance for bisexuality
(Factor 2), with a possible range of 1-5. Finding that average scores on
Stability ranged from 3.10 among heterosexual men to 4.16 among lesbian women, and average scores on Tolerance ranged from 3.19 to 4.92,
they concluded that attitudes about bisexuality were generally positive
among their lesbian, gay, and heterosexual respondents, but pointed out
that individual respondents scored as low as 1.1 among heterosexuals
and 1.5 among lesbians and gay men. Distinguishing attitudes toward
bisexual men and women, they found that lesbians believed bisexuality
is more stable for men than for women, whereas gay men believed the
reverse. Heterosexual men perceived female bisexuality as more
morally acceptable and stable than male bisexuality; no significant difference was found in heterosexual womens attitudes toward male and
female bisexuality.
With regard to discrimination, evidence is scarce; GSS findings indicate that gay and bisexual men earn 11-27% less than heterosexual
men, and that lesbian and bisexual women earn 12-30% less than heterosexual women, controlling for occupation and education (Badgett,
1995), but these findings do not distinguish bisexuals from lesbians and
gay men. In a small study of 249 student affairs professionals recruited
at events sponsored by the Standing Committee on LesbiadGayBisexual Awareness of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA)
and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA) Network for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Concerns at annual
ACPA and NASPA meetings, 21% of bisexuals, compared to 28% and
26%, respectively, of lesbians and gay men, reported experiencing discrimination (Croteau & von Destinon, 1994). The difference is not statistically significant. However, if bisexuals do experience less job-related
209
discrimination than lesbians and gay men, it might be because bisexuals are less likely to reveal their nonheterosexual orientations. Several
researchers have shown that bisexuals are less likely than lesbians and
gay men to disclose their orientations to physicians (Cochran & Mays,
1988; Smith, Johnson, & Guenther, 19851, relatives, friends, and
coworkers (e.g., Boulton, Hart, & Fitzpatrick, 1992; Doll et al., 1992;
Kalichman, Roffman, Picciano, & Bolan, 1998; see also Morris, Waldo,
& Rothblum, 2001) and sex partners (e.g., Earl, 1990).
Sexual Behavior Patterns and Relationship Ideals: Four Bisexual Ws of
Who, What, When, and Why
Many of the stereotypes that both heterosexuals and lesbiandgay
men hold about bisexuals pertain to bisexuals sexual behavior, including the stereotypes that bisexuals are nonmonogamous, promiscuous,
and unable to make a long-term commitment to a single romantic partner because they need both male and female partners.
Research findings generally contradict the stereotypes. Evidence
indicates that only a small proportion of self-identified bisexuals are
simultaneously involved with both male and female partners, or have
had both male and female partners in the recent past. For example, in
my mid-1980s study of 527 self-identified lesbians and bisexual women,
I found t h a t only 16.7% of the 45 self-identified bisexual women
reported simultaneous involvement with men and women (Rust, 1992).
Among 105 men recruited through an advertisement targeting bisexuals in a free weekly newspaper, Stokes, McKirnan, and Burzette (1993)
found t h a t only four percent reported simultaneous involvement.
Ekstrand et al. (1994) found that seven percent of 119 self-identified
bisexual men in the San Francisco Mens Health Study had had both
male and female partners during 1989. Among 1,057 women entering
gay bars in 16 cities on 3 consecutive nights, Norman et al. (1996) found
that 6.5% rated themselves as 3 or bisexual on a 5-point scale and
28.9% rated themselves 2-4. Among the latter, 6.9% had had both male
and female partners during a 2-month period (see also Berrios et al.,
1992; McKirnan et al., 1995).
Rates of simultaneous involvement might be influenced by social factors and the aging process. Among a sample of 100 self-identified bisexuals recruited from the San Francisco Bisexual Center and interviewed
in 1983, Weinberg et al. (1994) found that 65.8% of men and 69.7% of
women reported having had both male and female casual sex partners
in the previous 12 months. Among bisexuals surveyed in 1984-1985,
they found that 36.2% of bisexual men and 33.4% of bisexual women
reported simultaneous significant current involvements with both men
210
P. RUST
and women. Responses to 1988 follow-up interviews with 61 of these

1983 interviewees, plus 39 additional individuals revealed that the rate
of involvement with both sexes had decreased because bisexual men
and women had begun to avoid male partners for fear of HIV (Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 2001; see also Ekstrand et al., 1994). In 1996,
when Weinberg et al. reinterviewed 37 of the 1983 respondents and 19
of the respondents recruited in 1988, they found that bisexuals in San
Francisco had become less sexually active and gravitated toward
involvement with only one sex as they approached middle age, thus further reducing rates of simultaneous involvement in this cohort. The
bisexual respondents themselves attributed these changes to decreased
energy and libido and increased responsibilities associated with age.
The researchers also found that more bisexuals had moved toward
exclusive heterosexuality than exclusive homosexuality; the former
shift sometimes occurred in acquiescence to an other-sex partners
request for monogamy and sometimes in response to decreased opportunities for same-sex activity among those without long-term same-sex
partners.
With regard to the numbers and genders of bisexuals partners, the
most reliable findings have come from studies in which bisexuals sexual behavior is documented for the purpose of assessing levels of unsafe
sex and predicting routes of HIV transmission. Therefore, most of these
findings are based on moderately sized samples of individuals aged
under 30, usually men, recruited through various community venues.
These findings, and findings based on smaller convenience samples
including women and older individuals, suggest that-notwithstanding
the tendency toward heterosexuality with age-bisexual men and
women have more male than female partners. Comments made by
respondents in Weinberg et al.s (1994) study and in the IBICIP indicate
that the preponderance of male sex partners occurs because male partners are easier to find. For example, in a sample of 536 men between
the ages of 18 and 30 who had had sex with a man and a woman within
the previous 3 years, recruited through media ads, community settings,
and referrals in Chicago, McKirnan et al. (1995) found a mean of 4.7
male and 1.8 female partners during the previous 6 months. Among 76
females and 80 males aged 14-21 years and recruited from organizations for lesbiadgay youths in New York City, Rosario et al. (1996)
found that self-identified bisexual females had had lifetime medians of
five male and one female sex partner, and self-identified bisexual males
had had lifetime medians of five male and three female partners. In
their study of 105 self-identified bisexual men who were aged 19-62,
Stokes et al. (1993) found means of 2.1 male and 1.2 female partners in
211
the past 6 months (range = 0-25, 0-6), and lifetime means of 23.3 male
and 22.5 female partners (range = 0-300, 0-500). Although the authors
did not report findings for subjects of different ages, the preponderance
of male partners among men is less striking in this study than in studies using samples containing only younger respondents, possibly as a
result of the age-related tendency toward heterosexuality discovered by
Weinberg et al. (2001). Wood, Krueger, Pearlman, and Goldbaum (1993)
studied 5,480 men of unspecified age who had had sex with a man since
1977, surveyed when they sought HIV counseling and testing at the
AIDS Prevention Project of the Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health. The researchers found that, among 451 seronegative
men who had had sex with both a man and a woman in the previous 12
months, sexual self-identity was related to numbers of partners and to
preponderance of male partners. Those who identified as bisexual had
had an average of 7.9 male and 2.6 female partners in the previous 12
months, compared to 9.9 male and 2.3 female partners among those
who self-identified as gay and 2.8 male and 3.8 female partners among
those who self-identified as straight.
When self-identified bisexuals are compared to lesbians, gay men, and
heterosexuals, not surprisingly bisexuals are found to have had more
same-sex partners than heterosexuals, fewer same-sex partners than lesbiandgay men, and more other-sex partners than lesbians and gay men.
However, findings vary regarding whether bisexuals have fewer, or more,
other-sex partners than heterosexuals. In the study mentioned above,
compared to the lifetime median of five male and one female partner
among self-identified bisexual women, Rosario et al. (1996) found medians of three male and four female partners among self-identified lesbians.
Compared to five male and three female partners among self-identified
bisexual men, the researchers found medians of five male and no female
partners among self-identified gay men. Cochran and Mays (1988) found
that Black bisexual women had medians of eight male and seven female
partners in their lifetimes, compared to five male and nine female partners among lesbians. Among 508 men aged 18-30 who had had sex with
men and who were recruited in Boston, Wold et al. (1998) found that
menwho had also had sex with women during the previous 6 months had
means of 24 male and 17 female partners during their lifetimes, compared to lifetime means of 62 male and 3 female partners among men
who had had sex with men only during the previous year.
Weinberg et al. (1994), in addition to their three-phase longitudinal
study of bisexuals recruited through the San Francisco Bisexual Center,
conducted a 1984-1985 questionnaire survey of 96 bisexual women, 116
bisexual men, 105 heterosexual women, 85 heterosexual men, 94 les-
212
P. RUST
bians, and 186 gay men recruited through the Institute for Advanced
Study of Human Sexuality, the San Francisco Sex Information Service,
the Bisexual Center, and a lesbian and gay organization. They found
that bisexual men had a median of three male partners in the previous
year and 30 in their lifetimes, compared to six in the past year and 100
in their lifetimes among gay men. Both bisexual and heterosexual men
had lifetime medians of 20 female partners. Among women, bisexuals
had a lifetime median of 30 male partners compared to 25 among heterosexuals (see also Klein, 1978). Note that Weinberg et a1.k (1994) findings
indicate that among women, but not among men, bisexuals have more
other-sex partners than heterosexuals. In contrast, studies suggesting
that self-identified or behaviorally bisexual men have more other-sex
partners than heterosexual men include Carballo-Dieguez and Dolezal
(1994), Goode and Haber (1977), Saghir and Robins (1973), and Stokes et
al. (1993). Some researchers have shown that, when short time periods
such as 6 months are used, or only casual partners are considered, there
is no difference in number of same-sex partners between bisexual and
gay men (Doll et al., 1992; Kippax, Crawford, Rodden, & Benton, 1994;
Stokes, Taywaditep, Vanable, & McKirnan, 1996). Stokes et al. (1993)
found a positive correlation between lifetime numbers of male and
female partners, indicating that some bisexuals are very active with
both men and women, whereas others are not active with either. This
finding suggests that same-sex and other-sex activities-and the homosexual and heterosexual attractions motivating them-are harmonious,
rather than conflicting, forms of sexual expression.
With regard to relationship longevity, Weinberg et al. (1994) found
that one third of bisexual men and women had had relationships lasting
at least 10 years and Stokes et al. (1993) found that the average length
of marriage among bisexual men who had ever been married was almost
8 years. Findings by Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) and by Weinberg et
al. (1994) suggest that social approval and legal recognition have more to
do with relationship longevity than sexual orientation. In their landmark study American Couples, Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) reported
that after 18 months, 4% of married heterosexual couples compared to
17% of heterosexual cohabiting couples, 22% of lesbian couples, and 16%
of gay male couples had ended their relationships. These results suggest
that the sanction provided by marriage, rather than heterosexual orientation, accounts for the relative longevity of other-sex couples. In the
1984-85 phase of their study, Weinberg et al. found that, among both
men and women, bisexuals longest relationships were usually with
other-sex partners, and heterosexuals reported the longest relationships,
followed by bisexuals and then lesbians and gay men.
213
Committed long-term relationships are not, however, necessarily

monogamous and, consistent with stereotype, researchers have found a
lower rate of monogamy among bisexuals than among monosexuals. In
their 1984-1985 questionnaire survey, Weinberg et al. (1994) found that
48.7% of bisexual men and 45.8% of bisexual women reported multiple
simultaneous significant relationships, compared to 32.2%of gay men,
31.7%of heterosexual men, 22.8%of heterosexual women, and 10.9%of
lesbians. Among individuals with one significant relationship, bisexuals
were less likely to practice sexual fidelity; 45.9%of bisexual women and
45.0%of bisexual men reported additional sexual partners compared to
36.8% of gay men, and 11-15% of heterosexual women, heterosexual
men, and lesbians. In a 1982 survey of male Playboy readers, Lever,
Kanouse, Rogers, Carson, and Hertz (1992) found that 1,687 men who
described their behavior as sometimes homosexual were less likely
(43%)than exclusive homosexuals (55%) and more likely than exclusive
heterosexuals (33%) to report multiple dating partners. They were
also more likely (70%)than exclusive heterosexuals (40%)and as likely
as exclusive homosexuals (72%)to report being currently in open relationship or unfaithful to partner (p. 150). In a study of 1,086 women
recruited through womens festivals, bars, and organizations, Einhorn
and Polgar (1994) found that 63%of lesbians and 40% of bisexuals were
involved in monogamous relationships. In the IBICIP, I (Rust, 1 9 9 6 ~ )
found that 28% of self-identified lesbians compared to 16.4% of selfidentified bisexual women were in monogamous relationships.
The research findings also indicate, however, that the stereotype misattributes the reason for the higher rate of nonmonogamy among bisexuals; according to stereotype, bisexuality is incompatible with long-term
monogamy because bisexuals need both male and female sex partners
to satisfy both their heterosexual and homosexual sides. The fact that
many bisexuals do report monogamous relationships demonstrates that
monogamy is not inconsistent with bisexuality. The reason appears to
lie instead in Engel and Saracinos (1986) findings regarding bisexuals
relationship ideals. Using available samples (p. 243) of 46 self-identified male homosexuals, 32 lesbians, 19 bisexuals, and 148 heterosexuals, the authors found t h a t , regardless of sexual identity, their
respondents sought intelligent, attractive, affectionate, honest, and
dependable partners who shared their interests and beliefs. However,
they found that bisexuals (63%)were less likely than heterosexuals and
lesbiandgay men (92%and 91%)to say it is important for a relationship
to be free of jealous feelings.
Engel and Saracino (1986) reasoned that bisexuals have more potential partners and, therefore, less reason to worry about jealousy, but the
214
P. RUST
findings of Weinberg et al. (1994) and Rust (1996~)suggest a subcultural difference in concepts of a good relationship. Weinberg et al.s
bisexual subjects, recruited for interviews in 1983, idealized nonmonogamous relationship forms, such as dual primary or primary plus secondary relationships, open relationships, serial monogamy, and lifetime
polyfidelity. By 1988, Weinberg et al. found that the threat of AIDS had
shifted these ideals toward a greater desire for monogamy. However,
among self-identified bisexual respondents recruited in 1994-1996 for
the IBICIP, I (Rust, 1996c) also found an idealization of nonmonogamous relationship forms. Among my respondents, self-identified bisexual women and men (29.5% and 15.4%)were less likely than lesbians
and gay men (46.7% and 75.9%) to report that they desired a lifetime
committed monogamous relationship. These findings suggest that lower
rates of monogamy among bisexuals are not due to an inability to be
faithful, but instead to a cultural rejection of sexual monogamy as a cultural ideal in favor of other types of relationship ideals. Late 19th- and
20th-century changes in Western marriage ideals as well as the increasing life expectancies of both women and men have resulted in increasingly demanding expectations for the partners in a marital relationship.
The dramatic increase in the divorce rate in the United States during
the latter half of the 20th century, from an annual rate of less than 10
per 1,000 existing marriages in the 1950s to more than 20 per 1,000
marriages in the 199Os, could be seen as evidence that these expectations are becoming too difficult for many spouses to fulfill (Cherlin,
1992; U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 1993, 1995, 1997). In
this context, I (Rust, 1996c; see also Halpern, 1999; Vernallis, 1999)
have argued that other types of relationships might, in fact, be more
effective ways of fulfilling the myriad social, emotional, financial, and
reproductive demands placed on sexualhornantic relationships in contemporary society.
The Development and Meaning of Bisexual Identity: I f I Exist,

Who Am I?
The low prevalence of bisexual identity, especially in comparison to
the prevalence of bisexual feelings of attraction and lifetime sexual
behavior, results from the difficulty of developing and maintaining a
bisexual identity in a cultural context that validates lesbiadgay and
heterosexual identities while invalidating bisexual ones. But some individuals do succeed in developing bisexual identities. By what process do
individuals develop a bisexual identity and, once achieved, what does
their bisexual identity mean t o them? Is the process of coming out as a
bisexual similar to the process of coming out as lesbian or gay?
215
Adam (2000) identified two traditions in research on sexual identity,

which has typically focused on lesbian and gay identities: psychological
development research usually producing stage sequential models and
sociological research on the social, political, and historical contexts
within which identities are shaped (see also Eliason, 1996; Fox, 1995).
The former has dominated large-scale empirical research on nonheterosexual identity formation, probably because it is more amenable to
closed-ended question formats and statistical analysis. Researchers vary
in the degree to which they model the developmental process as multidimensional rather than linear, recognize that the process can occur differently for different individuals, cast it as a process of self-construction
versus self-discovery, and incorporate the interactive influence of the
environment. However, models of lesbiadgay identity formation generally assume that coming out begins with the recognition of same-sex
desire, sometimes preceded by childhood indicators, such as crossgender
behavior, followed by questioning of ones socially prescribed heterosexual identity, and ending with a mature lesbian or gay sexual identity
that reflects ones true sexuality and therefore remains stable (L. Diamond, 1998; Esterberg, 1997; Rust, 1996a; Savin-Williams, 2001).
Some theorists have attempted to model the process of coming out as
bisexual by adding bisexual identity to existing stage sequential models
of lesbian and gay identity development (Fox, 1996; Levine & Evans,
1991; Rust, 1993a; also see Coleman & Remafedi, 1989; cf. Cass, 1990;
Rosario, Hunter, Maguen, Gwadz, & Smith, 2001). Such models generally reflect lesbians, gay mens, and bisexuals constructions of their own
comings out; Esterberg (1997) and Weinberg et al. (1994) found that
their respondents tended to perceive their current self-identities as their
true identities and constructed their coming out stories as processes of
discovering their essential sexualities and adopting identities to reflect
them. However, Diamond (L. Diamond, 1998) studied the extent t o
which self-identified lesbian and bisexual womens self-reported sexual
histories conformed to a traditional stage-sequential model of sexual
identity development beginning with childhood indicators of sexual orientation, followed by awareness of same-sex attraction occurring prior to
questioning of heterosexual identity, and characterized by stability of
attractions over time. Among 89 women aged 16-23 recruited from lesbian, gay, and bisexual events; youth groups; gender and sexuality
classes; and student groups in central New York State, she found that
only 26% of self-identified bisexual women fit this pattern. Interestingly,
she also found that only 29% of lesbians fit the pattern.
There are several reasons bisexuals might not fit models of coming
out which posit a beginning default heterosexual identity and a static,
216
P. RUST
mature end stage (L. Diamond, 1998; Rust, 1996a). First, many bisexuals come out twice; once as lesbian or gay in a heterosexual society when
they acknowledge their attractions to the same sex and give up their
socially prescribed heterosexual identity and then again as bisexual in a
lesbian or gay community when they revalidate their attractions to the
other sex and question their lesbian or gay identity (Schwartz & Blumstein, 1998; Rust, 1993a). Second, bisexuals, like lesbians and gay men,
face their own internalized homophobia as well as the heterosexism of
family and friends. However, bisexuals-especially if they came out first
as lesbian or gay, and learned to rely on the lesbiadgay community for
support in the face of the heterosexism of the larger society-also face
rejection from lesbians and gay men and internalized biphobia learned
while participating in the lesbiadgay community (Fox, 1991; Kaahumanu, 1991; McLean, 2001). Third, the contemporary lesbian and gay
community is diverse, highly organized, and visible. Although growing
rapidly, the bisexual community is much smaller and less visible, so in
the face of incomplete acceptance by lesbians and gay men, newly selfidentified bisexuals have a more difficult time finding a supportive community of people like themselves (Fox, 1996; Hutchins, 1996; Klein,
1993; Rust, 2001a; Tucker, 1995; Williams, 1999).
Because of the lack of acceptance of bisexual identity and the lack of
a supportive community, in contrast to the mature, stable, lesbian or
gay identities normalized by stage sequential models of lesbian and gay
coming out, many individuals who come out as bisexual continue t o
switch back and forth between gayAesbian, heterosexual, and bisexual
identities. These individuals sometimes switch identities depending on
the genders of their current sex partners-a practice that is consistent
with the NHSLS finding that the prevalence of bisexual identity resembles the prevalence of bisexual behavior within the past year (Laumann
et al., 1994; see also Nichols, 1985, 1990; Rust, 1992)-or on their levels
of contact with heterosexual or lesbiadgay communities (e.g., Pillard,
1990; Schwartz & Blumstein, 1998; Weinberg et al., 1994). In other
words, bisexual identity once achieved is often not consistently maintained and cannot be appropriately understood as the static end stage of
a developmental process of self-discovery.
Weinberg et al. (1994) developed a stage sequential model of bisexual
self-identity development based not on preexisting models of lesbian
and gay identity development, but on research on bisexuals. Their
model begins with initial confusion, followed by finding and adopting
the bisexual label, and ends not with a stable true identity, but with
continued uncertainty due to the lack of social validation for bisexual
identity. Based on research on biracial individuals, Collins (2000) theo-
BISEXUALITY:THE STATE OF THE UNION
217
rized that bisexuals might display parallels with biracial individuals in

their processes of identity development (see also Colker, 1996; Rust,
199613; Thompson, 1999, 2000). Collins outlined themes relevant t o
these processes including self-evaluation, confusion of categorization,
belonging, infusiodexploration, situational use of identity, and resolution/acceptance/self-verification; Collins then distilled these themes into
a four phase model involving questioning/confusion, refusal/suppression, infusiodexploration, and resolutiodacceptance.
Stage sequential models, whether developed from research on gay
men, lesbians, or bisexuals, are often used in milestone research in
which subjects are asked the ages at which they experienced each stage
in the model. These ages are then averaged to produce a timeline for
the typical coming out process. Investigating the ages at which their
1983 respondents experienced a number of coming out milestones,
Weinberg et al. (1994) found that women and men first labelled themselves as bisexual at average ages of 26.8 years and 27.2 years, respectively, and that both women and men generally experienced other-sex
milestones such as heterosexual attraction (11.6, 11.7 years) and behavior (14.7, 17.3 years) before same-sex milestones such as homosexual
attraction (16.9, 13.5 years) and behavior (21.4, 16.3 years) with the
exception that men had had sex with men, on average, 1 year prior to
sex with women. In a sample of 486 bisexual women and 349 bisexual
men with average current ages of 30.3 and 34.8, Fox (1993, 1995, 1996)
found nearly identical patterns. In Foxs sample, women and men first
experienced heterosexual attractions at ages 11.1 and 11.4, homosexual
attractions at ages 15.8 and 13.7, heterosexual activity at ages 15.1 and
16.6, homosexual activity at ages 20.0 and 16.4, lesbianlgay identity at
ages 22.8 and 21.6, and bisexual identity at ages 22.5 and 22.6 (see also
Harris, 1977; Klein, 1978; Morse, 1989; Pattatucci & Hamer, 1995;
Zinik, 1985). In contrast, some research on youth indicates that samesex milestones come first in this population (Rotheram-Borus, Hunter,
& Rosario, 1994; Rust, 2000b; also see Savin-Williams, 1995; cf.
DAugelli & Hershberger, 1993; Rosario et al., 1996).
Researchers comparing bisexual adults to lesbian and gay male
adults have generally shown that bisexuals experience same-sex milestones at older average ages than lesbians and gay men and, once having recognized same-sex a t t r a c t i o n s , t a k e longer to adopt a
nonheterosexual identity (e.g., Pattatucci & Hamer, 1995; Weinberg et
al., 1994; also see Fox, 1995, 1996; Rust, 2000b). In their 1984-1985
study, Weinberg et al. found that bisexual women first recognized heterosexual attractions at an average age of 10.9 years and homosexual
attractions at an average age of 18.5, but did not adopt nonheterosexual
218
P. RUST
(homosexual or bisexual) identities until nearly 9 years later, at an

average age of 27.0. In contrast, lesbians had recognized their homosexual attractions a t an average age of 16.4, adopting nonheterosexual
identities only 6 years later, at an average age of 22.5. Among bisexual
men, the recognition of heterosexual and homosexual attractions
occurred at average ages of 12.8 and 17.1, followed by the adoption of
nonheterosexual identity 12 years later at age 29.0, compared to a lag of
10 years between the recognition of homosexual attraction at 11.5 years
to nonheterosexual identity a t 21.1 years among gay men. Recent
research suggests that these patterns among adults might be changing
as bisexual identity achieves political and social recognition (L. Diamond, 1998; Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000; Dube, 2000).
Although researchers using stage sequential models generally
acknowledge that not all individuals experience the stages in the same
order (e.g., Cass, 1979, 1990; McDonald, 1982), most nevertheless treat
alternate orders as deviations from a singular, fundamentally linear,
sequence (Rust, 1996a). For example, the practice of averaging milestone ages and interpreting the results as an indication of the order in
which individuals typically experience these milestones-the process
used by all researchers cited in the previous two paragraphs-incorporates the assumption of linearity. Average ages are not, in fact, evidence
that a majority-or even a substantial minority-of individuals in the
sample experienced the events in the order suggested by average ages.
Dube (2000) and I (Rust, 1993a) have shown how incorporating alternate orders into coming-out models as equally legitimate pathways can
lead to new findings, and how failure to do so can lead to false findings.
In his research on 166 gay and bisexual men aged 16 to 39 recruited
through support groups, the internet, and referrals, Dube classified
men according to the order in which they experienced behavioral and
identificatory milestones. He found that the order in which men experienced these milestones was correlated with age, level of homophobia,
and number of sex partners, and he concluded that the pathway taken
is a good predictor of future adjustment and relationship involvement
(p. 123). In my study of self-identified lesbian and bisexual women in
the mid-l980s, I found that a simple comparison of average ages confirmed previous researchers findings that, once they experienced samesex attraction, bisexual women had taken longer than lesbians to adopt
a nonheterosexual identity. However, I also discovered that one in four
self-identified lesbians in my sample had identified herself as lesbian
prior to experiencing same-sex attraction. I hypothesized that these
women might have been lesbian feminists who identified as lesbians for
political reasons and later developed an attraction for women consistent
219
with their political commitments (see also L. Diamond, 1998; Golden,

1996). When I excluded these women from the analysis and recalculated
the average length of time between experiencing same-sex attraction
and adopting a nonheterosexual identity among women who had actually experienced the events in that order, I found that contrary to findings by other researchers, currently bisexual-identified women had
actually adopted a nonheterosexual identity more quickly, not more
slowly, than currently lesbian-identified women.
Several researchers have found evidence that bisexuals, usually
defined as those self-identifying as bisexual at the time of the research,
experience greater variability in their sexualities and in their sexual
identities over time than individuals with monosexual identities. Most
of these findings are based on samples of women. For example, using
current and retrospective Kinsey self-ratings of sexual behavior, romantic feelings, and sexual feelings, Weinberg et al. (1994) found greater
changes over 3 years among bisexual women than among lesbians or
heterosexual women. Two years after her initial study of 89 women
recruited from lesbian, gay, and bisexual settings in central New York,
Diamond (2000) reinterviewed 80 women and found larger changes in
sexual attractions over the 2-year period among women who had identified as bisexual in 1998 than among women who had identified as lesbian. There were not, however, differences in the proportion of lesbian
and bisexual women who had changed identities. Weinberg et al. also
found that large changes in lesbians Kinsey ratings had generally
occurred during their twenties, whereas bisexuals occurred across the
lifespan (see also Pattatucci & Hamer, 1995; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, 1997). Among my (Rust, 1993a) respondents, currently self-identified bisexual women were more likely than currently self-identified
lesbians to have experienced multiple identity changes in the past.
Given these findings, stage sequential models of coming out might be
less appropriate for understanding bisexual identity-at least in the
context of current lack of social validation for bisexual identity-than
for lesbian and gay identity. Some theorists have suggested alternative
ways of conceptualizing identity among bisexuals. Twining (1983) suggested that bisexual identity development seems t o call for a task
model rather than a phase or stage model (p. 158). In other words, for
example, acceptance of ones sexual feelings might be seen as a task to
be undertaken rather than a stage to be completed. Diamond and
Savin-Williams (2000; see also Savin-Williams, 2001) urged researchers
to view variability in the emergence and expression of female same-sex
desire (p. 298) as normative rather than as a deviation from a sequential developmental process, to pay greater attention to the interaction
220
P. RUST
between individuals and their environments, and to incorporate both

bisexual and unlabeled women in future research. Rosario et al. (2001)
modelled coming out as a multidimensional process including changes
in attitudes toward homosexuality, involvement in gayllesbian activities, and disclosure of lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity to others. Adam
(2000) explored the deployment of sexual identity categories to invoke
a world of possibilities among men who have sex with men (pp. 326,
336). Eliason (1996) constructed bisexuals as subject positions from
which to speak rather than as autonomous, stable persons whose static
identities reflect essential selves (p. 55). I (Rust, 1993a; 1996d) argued
in favor of a concept of identity maintenance, defined as a process in
which a psychologically mature individual maintains a socially viable,
ego-syntonic, and stable sense of sexual identity by changing herhis
nominal sexual identity as the language and sociocultural landmarks
available for the construction of self-identities change across time and
social context (Rust, 2000b, p. 445, 1996d; see also Collins, 2000; SavinWilliams, 2001).
Once attained or maintained, what does bisexual identity mean to
those who claim it? In the IBICIP, I (Rust, 2000a, 2001b) found that
most women and men (72%) who self-identified as bisexual used the
identity to reflect their capacities for feeling attracted to, or falling in
love with, either women or men. For some, the mere capacity t o be
attracted to either sex was enough to validate a bisexual identity; others said that their bisexual identity reflected their willingness to act on
these attractions with individuals of either sex, and some used bisexual
identity to indicate that they could envision themselves with either a
man or a woman as a lifetime partner. For most, a bisexual identity was
not contingent on having had sex with both men and women. Many
respondents who had had sex with both men and women took pains to
explain that, whereas they saw their experiences with both sexes as an
expression of their bisexuality, they did not see bisexual behavior as a
criterion of bisexuality nor bisexuality as incompatible with monogamy.
Most also felt that bisexual identity is not contingent on having equally
strong feelings of attraction for women and men; many reported that
they were more attracted to one sex than the other, or that their attractions to males and females took different forms (see also Bhugra & de
Silva, 1998). For example, several self-identified bisexual respondents
described themselves as attracted to men physically and t o women
romantically or emotionally. Nine percent said that their feelings were
independent of gender, rather than toward men and women. Only 7%
of IBICIP bisexuals reported that their bisexual identity reflected their
actual bisexual behavior and that this behavior was, in fact, a criterion
22 1
for their bisexual identity. Some of these respondents used the qualified
self-label technical bisexual, as if t o distinguish themselves from
(true) bisexuals in apparent acknowledgement of the general opinion
that bisexuality is defined in terms of capacities for attraction rather
than actual sexual experiences. A few respondents mentioned neither
feelings of sexual attraction nor sexual behavior, but reported that they
had adopted their bisexual identities for political reasons, usually
revolving around a desire to avoid practicing sex or gender discrimination, or to challenge dualistic gender roles or gender categories.
The fact that most self-identified bisexuals feel that bisexual identity
reflects feelings of attraction, and not sexual behavior, is interesting in
light of aforementioned findings that bisexuals sometimes change identities depending on the genders of their partners, and that the prevalence of bisexual identity resembles the prevalence of short-term
bisexual behavior rather than long-term behavior or sexual attraction.
This apparent contradiction might reflect the difficulty of maintaining a
culturally unsupported bisexual identity based on ones feelings of
attraction without some proof-either in ones own eyes or in the eyes of
ones lesbian, gay, and heterosexual beholders-of those feelings in the
form of recent sexual activities. This proof might be less necessary as
bisexuals age; in the third phase of their longitudinal study of bisexuals
in San Francisco, Weinberg et al. (2001) reported that although bisexuals tended toward sexual involvement with only one sex and a decrease
in the salience of bisexual identity as they approached midlife, their
bisexual identities became more stable and certain. The authors suggested that, for individuals who retain bisexual identities despite
decreasing bisexual behavior with age, bisexual identity becomes more
stable because it is increasingly based on the enduring evidence of persistent bisexual feelings.
I (Rust, 2000a) also found that many individuals with either sexual
feelings toward both men and women or histories of sex with both men
and women solve the problem of self-identification by maintaining multiple sexual identities concurrently. In the IBICIP, I assessed sexual
self-identity by asking respondents to circle all that apply from a list
of 24 response options, including unsure, and other options, and
then to indicate which identity term they used most often. Fifty percent of respondents with a gay or lesbian identity simultaneously identified as bisexual, and 52% of respondents with a heterosexual identity
simultaneously identified as bisexual. Women were more likely to maintain multiple identities, and to maintain greater numbers of identities,
than men. On average, women chose 2.7 identity terms compared to 2.4
among men, and 27% of women, compared to 20% of men, chose four or
222
P. RUST
more identity terms. Among women, 58% of those who identified as lesbian or gay also identified as bisexual, whereas among men, 35% of
those who identified as gay also identified as bisexual.
In previous research, it has been found that womens sexuality is
more variable over the life course than mens and that women display
greater inconsistency among the various dimensions of sexual orientation than men, particularly a greater tendency to identify themselves in
ways not reflective of their sexual behaviors or feelings of attraction
(e.g., Ellis, Burke, & Ames, 1987; Golden, 1987; Laumann et al., 1994;
Morris & Rothblum, 1999; Schwartz & Blumstein, 1998; Weinberg et
al., 1994). For example, many researchers have found that substantial
proportions-ranging up to 25%-of self-identified lesbians have
recently had sex with men (e.g., Einhorn & Polgar, 1994; Remez, 2000;
Rust, 1992; San Francisco Department of Public Health, 1993). In her
longitudinal study, L. Diamond (2000) found that 24% of women who
identified as lesbian in 1998 engaged in sexual contact with at least one
man during the subsequent 2 years.
Diamond (L. Diamond, 1998), Diamond and Savin-Williams (20001,
Rothblum (2000) and I (Rust, 2000a) suggested that these findings are
artifacts of male bias in the methods used to assess respondents sexual
life histories, sexual behaviors, and self-identities. Diamond and SavinWilliams (2000) and L. Diamond (1998), who found that lesbians were
as unlikely as bisexual women t o fit traditional sequential models of
sexual identity development, pointed out that most research on sexual
identity has been done on gay men, producing models that might be
inapplicable to lesbian women as well as bisexuals of both genders.
Rothblum pointed out that questions about sexual behavior usually
refer to incidents of sex;for example, researchers typically ask respondents to recall the first time they had sex or to count how often they
have sex or how many sex partners they have had. In research on
sexual activity in which at least one partner is male, sex is a single,
definable event; when applied t o sex between women, however, what
constitutes a sex event is unclear (see also Rose, 2000). I noted that
researchers typically assess sexual identity by asking respondents to
choose one identity from a finite and short list of identities. This forces
the respondent with multiple sexual self-identities to select one identity.
Given evidence that women are more likely than men to have multiple
sexual self-identities (Rust, 2000a), this method of assessing sexual
identity probably results in the greater distortion of womens than
mens sexual identities, resulting in greater distortion of the relationship between self-identity and sexual behavior or attractions among
women than among men.
223
Using IBICIP data, I (Rust, 1999) showed that different methods of

assessing sexual identity produce different findings regarding rates of
inconsistency between womens sexual identities and their sexual
behaviors and feelings of attraction. For example, among women who
would answer yes if asked are you a lesbian?-a procedure that
might be used to screen potential respondents for a study of lesbiansonly 9.1% reported exclusively same-sex attractions. In fact, 69.6%
reported that 20% or more of their attractions were to men, only 29.2%
would not consider having sex with a man and 27.7%-more than one in
four-were currently sexually involved with men. Among women who
would choose lesbian if asked to choose only one identity from a list of
response options-the standard method of assessing sexual identity as
a research variable-17.2% reported exclusive attractions t o women
and 48.4% reported that 20% or more of their attractions were to men.
Almost half (47.9%) would not consider having sex with a man, and
13.5% were currently sexually involved with men. Among women who
would choose only a lesbian identity even if given the option of choosing
more than one identity, 31.9% reported exclusive same-sex attractions
and most of the remainder, 42.6%, reported that only 10% of their feelings of sexual attraction were toward men. Three quarters (73%) of
these women would not consider having sex with a man, and only 5.4%
were currently having sex with men. These findings indicate that much
of the inconsistency found between womens sexual identities, attractions, and behaviors disappears when sexual self-identity is assessed
using methods that are sensitive to the ways in which women use sexual self-identity. This suggests that previous researchers findings of
greater inconsistency in womens than mens sexualities is, in fact, an
artifact of gender biased methods of assessing sexual identity.
Summary
Since Paul (1985) and MacDonald (1983) criticized researchers for

neglecting bisexuality, bisexuals have been increasingly included in
research on lesbians and gay men, and studied in their own right. In
this article, I have shown how both the earlier neglect of bisexuality by
researchers and the recent increase in research on bisexuality have
occurred in response to broader cultural trends and historical events,
including the history of the cultural construction of gender and sexuality, changes in heterosexual ideals and marital relationships, the sexual
freedom movement of the 1960s, the lesbian and gay movement, the
HIV crisis, and the growth of bisexual political activism. I have outlined
parallels between popular attitudes toward bisexuality and the research
questions asked by social scientists. As a result of the increased atten-
224
P. RUST
tion to bisexuality and the trend toward studying issues of interest to

bisexuals themselves, we are beginning to accumulate knowledge about
certain aspects of the bisexual experience including the prevalence of
bisexuality, the experience of prejudice and discrimination by bisexuals,
bisexuals sexual and romantic relationship patterns, and the ways in
which bisexuals develop and use sexual self-identity. The findings of
this research demonstrate that bisexuality must be understood on its
own terms-not merely as a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, but as a form of sexuality t h a t offers the possibility for
greater understanding of sexuality in general.
References
Adam, B. D. (1979). A social history of gay politics. In M. P. Levine (Ed.), Gay men: The
sociology of male homosexuality (pp. 285-300). London: Harper & Row.
Adam, B. D. (1987). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement. Boston: Twayne Publishers.
Adam, B. D. (2000). Love and sex in constructing identity among men who have sex with
men. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 5,325-339.
Adam, B. D., Sears, A,, & Schellenberg, E. G. (2000). Accounting for unsafe sex: Interviews with men who have sex with men. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 24-36.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
Alarid, L. F. (2000). Sexual orientation perspectives of incarcerated bisexual and gay men:
The county jail protective custody experience. Prison Journal, 80,80-95.
Allen, C. (1961). When homosexuals marry. In I. Rubin (Ed.), The third sex (pp. 58-62).
New York New Book.
Allen, D. M. (1980). Young male prostitutes: A psychosocial study. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 9, 399-426.
Allen, L. B., Glicken, A. D., Beach, R. K., & Naylor, K. E. (1998). Adolescent health care
experience of gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health,
23,212-220.
Altman, D. (1982). The homosexualisation of America and the Americanisation of the
homosexual. New York: St. Martins Press.
Angelides, S. (2001).A history of bisexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Armstrong, E. (1995). Traitors to the cause? Understanding the lesbiadgay bisexuality
debates. In N. Tucker (Ed.), Bisexual politics: Theories, queries, and visions (pp. 199217). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Ault, A. (1994). Hegemonic discourse in a n oppositional community: Lesbian feminists
and bisexuality. Critical Sociology, 20(3), 107-122.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 48, 726-739.
Bell, A. P. (1975). Research in homosexuality: Back to the drawing board. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 4,421-431.
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men
and women. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Berrios, D. C., Hearst, N., Perkins, L. L., Burke, G. L., Sidney, S., McCreath, H. E., et al.,
(1992). HIV antibody testing in young, urban adults. Archives of Znternal Medicine,
152, 397-402.
Bevier, P. J., Chiasson, M. A,, Heffernan, R. T., & Castro, K. G. (1995). Women at a sexually transmitted disease clinic who reported same-sex contact: Their HIV seroprevalence and risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 1366-1371.
Bhugra, D., & de Silva, P. (1998). Dimensions of bisexuality: An exploratory study using
225
focus groups of male and female bisexuals. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13(2), 145-157.
Bieber, I. (1969). The married male homosexual. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality,
3(5), 76-84.
Binson, D., Michaels, S., Stall, R., Coates, T. J., Gagnon, J. H., & Catania, J. A. (1995).
Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and
its urban centers. The Journal of Sex Research, 32,245-254.
Bisexual Anthology Collective (Acharya, L., Chater, N., Falconer, D., Lewis, S., McLennan, L., & Nosov, S.).(Eds.). (1995). Plural desires: Writing bisexual womens realities.
Toronto: Sister Vision.
Bisexual Chic: Anyone Goes (1974, May 27). Newsweek, 90.
Blumstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. (1976a). Bisexuality in men. Urban Life, 5(3), 339-358.
Blumstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. (1976b). Bisexuality in women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 5, 171-181.
Blumstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Bisexuality: Some social psychological issues.
Journal of Social Issues, 33(2), 30-45.
Blumstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York:
William Morrow.
Boles, J., & Elifson, K. W. (1994). Sexual identity and HIV The male prostitute. The Journal of Sex Research, 31,39-46.
Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance and homosexuality: Gay people in Western
Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boswell, J. (1982). Revolutions, universals, and sexual categories. Salmagundi, 58/59, 89113.
Boswell, J . (1990). Sexual a n d ethical categories i n premodern Europe. I n D. P.
McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J . M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality I heterosexuality:
Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 15-31). New York Oxford University Press.
Boulton, M. (1991). Review of the literature on bisexuality and HIV transmission. In R.
Tielman, M. Carballo, & A. Hendriks (Eds.), Bisexuality and HIVIAIDS: A global perspective (pp. 187-209). Buffalo, Ny. Prometheus Books.
Boulton, M., Hart, G., & Fitzpatrick, R. (1992). The sexual behaviour of bisexual men in
relation to HIV transmission. AIDS Care, 4 , 165-175.
Bowker, L. H. (1980). Prison victimization. New York: Elsevier.
Boyer, D. (1989). Male prostitution and homosexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality,
17, 151-184.
Bray, A. (1982). Homosexuality in renaissance England. London: Gay Mens Press.
Brown, R. M. (1975). The shape of things to come. In N. Myron & C. Bunch (Eds.), Lesbianism and the womens movement (pp. 69-77). Baltimore, MD: Diana Press. 1975.
(First written on behalf of The Furies and published in 1972 in Women: A Journal of
Liberation, 2[4], 44-46)
Brown, R. M. (1976). Coitus interruptus. In R. M. Brown (Ed.), A plain brown rapper (pp.
29-34). Oakland, CA: Diana Press.
Brownfain, J. J. (1985). A study of the married bisexual male: Paradox and resolution.
Journal of Homosexuality, 11(112), 173-188. (Also published in F. Klein & T. J. Wolf
[Eds.], l l u o lives to lead: Bisexuality i n men and women [pp. 173-1881. New York: Harrington Park Press)
Bullough, V. L. (1976). Sexual variance i n society and history. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bullough, V. L. (1979). Homosexuality: A history. New York New American Library.
Bullough, V. (1990). The Kinsey scale in historical perspective. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A.
Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality! heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual
orientation (pp. 3-14). New York: Oxford University Press.
Burkhart, K. W. (1996). Women in prison: Inside the concrete womb. Boston: Northeastern
University Press. (Original work published in 1973)
226
P. RUST
Buxton, A. P. (2001). Writing our own script: How bisexual men and their heterosexual
wives maintain their marriages after disclosure. Journal of Bisexuality, 1(2/3), 155189.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York Academic Press.
Calhoun, T. C. (1992). Male street hustling: Introduction processes and stigma containment. Sociological Spectrum, 12, 35-52.
Califia, P. (1983, July). Gay men, lesbians and sex: Doing it together. The Advocate, 24-27.
Califia, P. (1994). A secret side of lesbian sexuality. In P. Califia, Public sex: The culture of
radical sex (pp. 157-164). San Francisco: Cleis. (Original work published in 1979)
Carballo-Dieguez, A,, & Dolezal, C. (1994). Contrasting types of Puerto Rican men who
have sex with men (MSM). Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 6(4), 41-67.
Carroll, L. (1977). Humanitarian reform and biracial assault i n a maximum security
prison. Urban Life, 5, 417-437.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4,219-235.
Cass, V. C. (1990). The implications of homosexual identity formation for the Kinsey
model and scale of sexual preference. In D. P. McWhirter, S.A. Sanders, & J. M.
Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality /heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp.
239-2661, New York: Oxford University Press.
Chauncey, G. (1982-1983). From sexual inversion to homosexuality: Medicine and the
changing conceptualization of female deviance. Salmagundi, 58/59, 114-146.
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
C h u n g , Y. B., & K a t a y a m a , M. ( 1 9 9 6 ) . A s s e s s m e n t of s e x u a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n
lesbiadgayhisexual studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 49-62.
Clausen, J . (1990). My interesting condition. The Journal of Sex Research, 27,445-459.
Clinton, M. T. (1996). Almost a dyke: In search of the perfect bisexual. In M. Daly (Ed.),
Surface tension: Love, sex, and politics between lesbians and straight women (pp. 160165). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (1988). Disclosure of sexual preference t o physicians by
black lesbian and bisexual women. The Western Journal of Medicine, 149,616-619.
Cochran, S . D., Mays, V. M., & Bowen, D. (2001). Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. American Journal of
Public Health, 91, 591-597.
Cochran, W. G., Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1953). Statistical problems of the Kinsey
Report. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48, 673-716.
Cole, R., & Cooper, S. (1990-1991). Lesbian exclusion from HIV/AIDS education: Ten years
of low-risk identity and high-risk behavior, SIECUS Report, 19(2), 18-23.
Coleman, E. (1985a). Bisexual women in marriages. Journal of Homosexuality, ll(1/2), 8799. (Also published in F. Klein & T. J. Wolf [Eds.], 1985), ltvo lives to lead: Bisexuality
in men and women [pp. 87-991. New York: Harrington Park Press)
Coleman, E. (198513). Integration of male bisexuality and marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2), 189-207. (Also published in F. Klein & T. J. Wolf [Eds.], lloo lives to lead:
Bisexuality in men and women [pp. 189-2071. New York: Harrington Park Press)
Coleman, E. (1989). The married lesbian. Marriage and Family Review, 14(3/4), 119-135.
Coleman, E. (1998). Paradigmatic changes in the understanding of bisexuality. In E. J .
Haeberle & R. Gindorf (Eds.), Bisexualities: The ideology and practice of sexual contact
with both men and women (pp. 107-112). New York: Continuum.
Coleman, E., & Remafedi, G. (1989, September/October). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: A critical challenge to counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68,36-40.
Colker, R. (1996). Hybrid: Bisexuals, multiracials, and other misfits under American law.
New York: New York University Press.
Collins, J. F. (2000). Biracial-bisexual individuals: Identity coming of age. International
Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 5(3), 221-253.
227
Collins, L. E., & Zimmerman, N. (1983). Homosexual and bisexual issues. Family Therapy
Collections, 5, 82-100.
Cook, K. (with Kretchmer, A., Nellis, B., Lever, J., & Hertz, R.). (1983, May). The Playboy
readers sex survey: Part three. Playboy, 30,126-128, 136,210-220.
Coons, F. W. (1972). Ambisexuality as a n alternative adaptation. The Journal of the American College Health Association, 21, 142-144.
Croteau, J. M., & von Destinon, M. (1994). A national survey of job search experiences of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual student affairs professionals. Journal of College Student
Development, 35,40-45.
DAugelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 21,421-448.
Daumer, E. D. (1994). Queer ethics; or, the challenge of bisexuality to lesbian ethics. In C.
Card (Ed.), Adventures in lesbian philosophy (pp. 98-111). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Davidowitz, E. (1993). The secret life of bisexual husbands. Redbook, 181(5),114-117, 135.
Davis, A. J. (1968). Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and sheriffs vans,
E-ans-Action, 6(2), 8-17. (Report on sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system
and Sheriffs vans. Submitted to The Honorable Alexander F. Barbieri by Alan J.
Davis, Chief Assistant District Attorney and Special Master)
Davis, A. J. (1970). Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system. In J . H. Gagnon &
W. Simon (Eds.), The sexual scene (pp. 107-1241,New York Aldine.
De Cecco, J . P. (1981). Definition and meaning of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(4), 51-67.
De Cecco, J . P. (1985). Preface. In F. Klein & T. J. Wolf (Eds.), G o lives to lead: Bisexuality in men and women (pp. xi-xiii). New York: Harrington Park Press.
De Cecco, J . P., & Shively, M. G. (1984). From sexual identity to sexual relationships: A
contextual shift. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2/3), 1-26.
Deihl, M. (1989, June-July). A Stonewall within a Stonewall. Bi Women, 7, 3.
DEmilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in
America. New York: Harper and Row.
Diamant, A. L., Wold, C., Spritzer, K., & Gelberg, L. (2000). Health behaviors, health status, and access to and use of health care: A population-based study of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 1043-1051.
Diamond, L. M. (1998). Development of sexual orientation among adolescent and young
adult women. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1085-1095.
Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexualminority women over a 2-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36, 241-250.
Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. (2000). Explaining diversity in the development of
same-sex sexuality among young women. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 297-313.
Diamond, M. (1998). Bisexuality: A biological perspective. In E. J . Haeberle & R. Gindorf
(Eds.), Bisexualities: The ideology and practice of sexual contact with both men and
women (pp. 53-80). New York Continuum.
Dixon, J . K. (1984). The commencement of bisexual activity in swinging married women
over age thirty. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 71-90.
Doll, L., Myers, T., Kennedy, M., & Allman, D. (1997). Bisexuality and HIV risk: Experiences in Canada and the United States. Annual Review of Sex Research, 7,102-147.
Doll, L. S., Petersen, L. R., White, C. R., Johnson, E. S., Ward, J . W., & The Blood Donor
Study Group. (1992). Homosexually and nonhomosexually identified men who have sex
with men: A behavioral comparison. The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 1-14.
Dube, E. M. (2000). The role of sexual behavior in the identification process of gay and
bisexual males. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 123-132.
Dworkin, A. S. (2001). Bisexual histories in San Francisco in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Journal of Bisexuality, 1,87-119.
228
P. RUST
Dworkin, S. H. (2001). Treating the bisexual client. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57,
671-678.
Eadie, J . (1993). Activating bisexuality: Towards a bi/sexual politics. In J . Bristow & A. R.
Wilson (Eds.), Activating theory: Lesbian, gay, bisexual politics (pp. 139-170). London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
Earl, W. L. (1990). Married men and same sex activity: A field study on HIV risk among
men who do not identify as gay or bisexual. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 16,251257.
Earls, C. M., & David, H. (1989). A psychosocial study of male prostitution. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 18,401-419.
Echols, A. (1984). The taming of the id: Feminist sexual politics, 1968-1983. In C. S. Vance
(Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 50-72). London: Routledge.
Einhorn, L., & Polgar, M. (1994). HIV-risk behavior among lesbians and bisexual women.
AlDS Education and Prevention, 6,514-523.
Ekstrand, M. L., Coates, T. J., Guydish, J . R., Hauck, W. W., Collette, L., & Hulley, S. B.
(1994). Are bisexually identified men in San Francisco a common vector for spreading
HIV infection to women? American Journal of Public Health, 84,915-919.
Eliason, M. J. (1996). Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons: Beyond a
minoritizing view. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(3), 31-58.
Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26,317-326.
Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality,
1, 137-154.
Eliason, M. J., & Raheim, S. (1996). Categorical measurement of attitudes about lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 4(3), 51-65.
Ellis, H. (1915). Studies i n the psychology of sex: Vol. II. Sexual inversion. Philadelphia: F.
A. Davis. (Original work published in 1897)
Ellis, H. (1928). Studies i n the psychology of sex. Vol. VII. Eonism and other supplementary
studies. Philadelphia: Davis.
Ellis, L., Burke, D., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Sexual orientation as a continuous variable: A
comparison between the sexes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16,523-529.
Engel, J . W., & Saracino, M. (1986, Fall). Love preferences and ideals: A comparison of
homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual groups. Contemporary Family Therapy, 8, 241250.
Epstein, S. (1987). Gay politics, ethnic identity: The limits of social constructionism.
Socialist Review, 17, 9-54.
Esterberg, K. G. (1997). Lesbian and bisexual identities: Constructing communities, constructing selves. Philadelpha: Temple University Press.
Evan, D., & Zeiss, A. M. (1985). Catastrophe theory: A topological reconceptualization of
sexual orientation. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 235-251.
Evans, D. T. (1993). Sexual citizenship: The material construction of sexualities. New York:
Routledge.
Faderman, L. (1991). Odd girls and twilight lovers: A history of lesbian life in twentiethcentury America. New York Columbia University Press.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes: w h y male and female are not enough. Sciences,
33(2), 20-25.
Fay, R. E., Turner, C. F., Klassen, A. D., & Gagnon, J . H. (1989, January 20). Prevalence
and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science, 243,338-347.
Feldman, P. (1984). The homosexual preference. In K. Howells (Ed.), The psychology of
sexual diversity (pp. 5-41). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Feldman, P., & MacCulloch, M. J . (1971). Homosexual behaviour: Therapy a n d
assessment. Oxford: Pergamon.
Firestein, B. (Ed.). (1996). Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of a n invisible
minority. Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
229
Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality, I: An introduction. London: Allen & Lane.
Fox, A. (1991). Development of a bisexual identity: Understanding the process. In L.
Hutchins & L. Kaahumanu (Eds.), Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak out (pp.
29-36). Boston: Alyson.
Fox, R. C. (1993). Coming out bisexual: Identity, behavior, and sexual orientation self-disclosure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies,
San Francisco.
Fox, R. C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. DAugelli & C. J . Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 48-86).
New York Oxford University Press.
Fox, R. C. (1996). Bisexuality in perspective: A review of theory and research. In B. A.
Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of a n invisible minority (pp. 350). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
Freedman, E. B. (1996, Summer). The prison lesbian: Race, class, and the construction of
the aggressive female homosexual, 1915-1965. Feminist Studies, 22, 397-423.
Freedman, E. B. (2001). The burning of letters continues: Elusive identities and the historical construction of sexuality. In A. M. Black (Ed.), Modern American queer history
(pp. 51-68). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Freimuth, M. J., & Hornstein, G. A. (1982). A critical examination of the concept of gender. Sex Roles, 8, 515-532.
Friedman, S. R., Jose, B., & Deren, S. (1995). Risk factors for human immunodeficiency
virus seroconversion among out-of-treatment drug injectors in high and low seroprevlance cites. American Journal of Epidemiology, 142, 864-874.
Furnald, R. (1978). Male juvenile prostitution. Unpublished masters thesis. University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Gagnon, J . H. (1977). Human sexualities. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Gagnon, J. H. (1989). Disease and desire. Daedalus, 118(3),47-77.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality.
Chicago: Aldine.
Gagnon, J . H., & Simon, W. (1987). The sexual scripting of oral genital contacts. Archives
of Sexual Behauior, 16, 1-25.
Gamson, J. (1995). Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma. Social Problems, 42, 390-405.
Garber, M. (1995). Vice uersa: Bisexuality and the eroticism of everyday life. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Geller, T. (Ed.). (1990). Bisexua1ity:A reader and sourcebook. Ojai, CA Times Change Press.
Gelman, D. (1987, July 13).A perilous double love life. Newsweek, llO(2), 44-47.
George, S. (1993). Women and bisexuality. London: Scarlet Press.
Gerrard, S., & Halpin, J. (1989, October). The risky business of bisexual love. Cosmopolitan, 207(4), 203-205.
Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a womens prison. New York John
Wiley.
Golden, C. (1987). Diversity and variability in womens sexual identities. In the Boston
Lesbian Psychologies Collective (Ed.), Lesbian psychologies: Explorations and challenges (pp. 18-34). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Golden, C. (1994). Our politics and choices: The feminist movement and sexual orientation. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research,
and clinical applications (pp. 54-70). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
Golden, C. (1996). Whats in a name? Sexual self-identification among women. In R. C.
Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 229-2491, New York Harcourt Brace.
Gonsiorek, J. C. (1982). Introduction. In W. Paul, J . D. Weinrich, J . C. Gonsiorek, & M. E.
Hotvedt (Eds.), Homosexuality: Social, psychological, and biological issues (pp. 57-70).
Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
230
P. RUST
Gonsiorek, J. C., Sell, R. L., & Weinrich, J. D. (1995). Definition and measurement of sexual orientation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 25(Suppl.), 40-51.
Gonzales, V., Washienko, K. M., Krone, M. R., Chapman, L. I., Arredondo, E. M., Huckeba,
H. J., et al. (1999). Sexual and drug-use risk factors for HIV and STDs: A comparison
of women with and without bisexual experiences. The American Journal of Public
Health, 89, 1841.
Goode, E., & Haber, L. (1977). Sexual correlates of homosexual experience: An exploratory
study of college women. The Journal of Sex Research, 13, 12-21.
Gosselin, C., & Wilson, G. (1984). Fetishism, sadomasochism and related behaviours. In K.
Howells (Ed.),The psychology ofsexual diversity (pp. 89-110). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Grossman, A. H., DAugelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (2000). Social support networks of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults 60 years of age and older. Journals of Gerontology,
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55B, 171-179.
Gruskin, E. P., Hart, S., & Gordon, N. (2001). Patterns of cigarette smoking and alcohol
use among lesbians and bisexual women enrolled in a large health maintenance organization. American Journal of Public Health, 91,953-958.
Guidry, L. L. (1999). Clinical intervention with bisexuals: A contextualized understanding. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 30, 22-26.
Haeberle, E. J., & Gindorf, R. (Eds.). (1998). Bisexualities: The ideology and practice of
sexual contact with both men and women. New York: Continuum.
Halperin, D. (1993). Is there a history of sexuality? In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M.
Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian a n d g a y studies reader (pp. 416-4311, New York: Routledge.
Halpern, E. L. (1999). If love is so wonderful, whats so scary about MORE? Journal of
Lesbian Studies, 3(1/2), 157-164.
Hansen, C. E., & Evans, A. (1985). Bisexuality reconsidered: An idea in pursuit of a definition. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2), 1-6.
Harris, D. A. I. (1977). Social-psychological characteristics of ambisexuals. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39,
574A.
Hayes, B. G., & Hagedorn, W. B. (2001, Spring). Working with the bisexual client: How far
have we progressed? Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development,
40, 11-20.
Hays, D., & Samuels, A. (1989). Heterosexual womens perceptions of their marriages t o
bisexual or homosexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, I8(1/2), 81-100.
Heldke, L. (1997). In praise of unreliability. Hypatia, 12(3),174-182.
Hemmings, C. (1993). Resituating the bisexual body: From identity t o difference. In J.
Bristow & A. R. Wilson (Eds.), Activating theory: Lesbian, gay, bisexual politics (pp.
118-1381,London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Herdt, G. H. (1984). A comment on cultural attributes and fluidity of bisexuality. Journal
of Homosexuality, 10(3/4), 53-61.
Herdt, G. (1988). Cross-cultural forms of homosexuality and the concept gay.Psychiatric
Annals, 18, 37-39.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological Sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 67, 945-951.
Hewitt, C. (1998). Homosexual demography: Implications for the spread of AIDS. The
Journal of Sex Research, 35, 390-396.
Hirschfeld, M. (1938). Sexual anomalies and peruersions. London: Encyclopaedic Press.
(Original work published in 1896)
Hoffman, M. (1972). The male prostitute. Sexual Behauior, 2(8), 16-21.
Hollander, D. (2000). Sexual orientation and health care. Family Planning Perspectives,
32, 202.
Hollibaugh, A,, & Moraga, C. (1983). What were rollin around in bed with: Sexual
silences in feminism. In A. Snitow, C. Stansell, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Powers ofdesire:
23 1
The politics of sexuality (pp. 394-4051, New York: Monthly Review Press. (First published in Heresies, 3141, 58-62, 1981)
Holtzen, D. W. (1994). Handedness and sexual orientation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16(5), 702-712.
Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine.
Humphrey, J . C. (1999). To queer or not to queer a lesbian and gay group? Sexual and gendered politics a t the turn of the century. Sexualities, 2, 223-246.
Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behauior in the 1970s. Chicago, IL: Playboy Press.
Hutchins, L. (1996). Bisexuality: Politics and community. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality; The psychology and politics of an inuisible minority (pp. 240-2591, Thousand
Oaks, CA Sage.
Hutchins, L., & Kaahumanu, L. (Eds.). (1991). Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak
out. Boston: Alyson.
Imielinski, K. (1969). Homosexuality in males with particular reference to marriage. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 17,126-132.
International Medical News Group. (2001). STDs and bisexuality. Family Practice News,
31(3),24.
Istvan, J. (1983). Effects of sexual orientation on interpersonal judgment. The Journal of
Sex Research, 19, 173-191.
James, J . (1976). Motivations for entrance into prostitution. In L. Crites (Ed.), The female
offender (pp. 177-1981,Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Janus, S. S., & Janus, C. L. (1993). The Janus report on sexual behauior. New York: John
Wiley.
Janus, M. D., Scanlon, B., & Price, V. (1984). Youth prostitution. In A. W. Burgess with M.
L. Clark (Eds.), Child pornography and sex rings (pp. 127-1461, Lexington, M A Lexington Books.
Jeffreys, S. (1999). Bisexual politics: A superior form of feminism? Womens Studies Znternational Forum, 22,273-285.
Johnson, E. (1971). The homosexual in prison. Social Theory and Practice, 1(4), 83-95.
(Also published in R. Leger & J . Stratton [Eds.]. 119771. The sociology ofcorrections: A
book ofreadings [pp. 254-2551. New York John Wiley)
Joseph, S. (1997). Shes my wife: Hes just sex. Sydney: Australian Centre for Independent
Journalism, University of Technology.
Kaahumanu, L. (1991). Hapa haole wahine. In L. Hutchins & L. Kaahumanu (Eds.), Bi
any other name: Bisexual people speak out (pp. 306-3231, Boston: Alyson.
Kalichman, S. C., Roffman, R. A., Picciano, J. F., & Bolan, M. (1998). Risk for HIV infection among bisexual men seeking HIV-prevention services and risks posed to their
female partners. Health Psychology, 17, 320-327.
Kaplan, G. T., & Rogers, L. J. (1984). Breaking out of the dominant paradigm: A new look
a t sexual attraction. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(314),71-75.
Kaplan, R. (1992). Compulsory heterosexuality and the bisexual existence: Toward a
bisexual feminist understanding of heterosexism. In E. R. Weise (Ed.), Closer to home:
Bisexuality & feminism (pp. 269-280). Seattle, WA. Seal Press.
Katz, J. N. (1976). Gay American history: Lesbians and gay men in the U.S.A. New York:
Thomas and Cromwell.
Katz, J . N. (1983). Gayllesbian a1manac:A new documentary. New York Harper & Row.
Katz, J . (1990). The invention of heterosexuality. Socialist Reuiew, 20, 7-34.
Katz, J . N. (1995). The inuention ofheterosexuality. New York: Dutton.
Katz, J. N. (1997). Homosexual and heterosexual: Questioning the terms. In M. Duberman (Ed.), A queer world: The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies reader (pp. 177180). New York: New York University Press.
Kauth, M. R., & Kalichman, S. C. (1995). Sexual orientation and development: An interactive approach. In L. Diamant & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behauior, and identity (pp. 81-103). Westport, C T Greenwood.
232
P. RUST
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology ofpersonal constructs, Vol. I. New York: Norton.
Kennedy, M., & Doll, L. S. (2001). Male bisexuality and HIV risk. Journal of Bisexuality,
1(2/3), 109-135.
Kertbeny, K. M. (as anonymous author). (1869). Section 143 of the Prussian Penal Code of
April 14, 1851, and its upholding of Paragraph 152 in the draft of a penal code for the
North German Confederation. Open, expert letter to His Excellence Herr Dr. Leonhardt, Royal Prussian Minister of State and Justice, Berlin 1869.
King, K. (1986). The situation of lesbianism as feminisms magical sign: Contests for
meaning and the U S . womens movement, 1968-1972. Communication, 9, 65-91.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in
the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Kippax, S., Crawford, J., Rodden, P., &. Benton, K. (1994). Report on project male-call:
National telephone survey of men who have sex with men. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Kirkham, G. L. (1971). Homosexuality in prison. In J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Studies i n the
sociology of sex (pp. 325-349). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Klein, F. (1978). The bisexual option: A concept of one-hundred percent intimacy. New
York: Arbor House.
Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option (2nd ed.). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Klein, F., & Schwartz, T. (2001). Bisexual and gay husbands: Their stories, their words.
New York: Harrington Park Press.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic
process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2), 35-50.
Koh, A. S., & Diamant, A. (2000). Use of preventive health behaviors by lesbian, bisexual,
and heterosexual women: Questionnaire survey. The Western Journal of Medicine, 172,
379-385.
Kroeber, A. (1983, October 10). Bisexuality: Toward a new understanding of men, women,
and their feelings. Boston Globe, pp. 52, 54.
Kruks, G. (1991). Gay and lesbian homeledstreet youth: Special issues and concerns.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 12, 515-518.
Laner, M. R. (1977). Permanent partner priorities: Gay and straight. Journal of Homosexuality, 3 , 21-39.
Lauderback, D., & Waldorf, D. (1989, January). Male prostitution and AIDS: Preliminary
findings. Focus: A Guide to AIDS Research and Counseling, 4(2), 3-4.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J . H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices i n the United States. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Leland, J. (with Rhodes, S., Katel, P., Kalb, C., Peyser, M., Joseph, N., & Brant, M.).
(1995, July 17). Bisexuality emerges as a new sexual identity. Newsweek, 126(3),44-50.
Lemp, G. F., Jones, M., Kellogg, T. A,, Nieri, G. N., Anderson, L., Withum, D., et al. (1995).
HIV seroprevalence and risk behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women in San
Francisco and Berkeley, California. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 1549-1552.
Lever, J., Kanouse, D. E., Rogers, W. H., Carson, S., & Hertz, R. (1992). Behavior patterns
and sexual identity of bisexual males. The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 141-167.
Levine, H., & Evans, N. J. (1991). The development of gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities. In N. J . Evans & V. A. Wall. Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on
campus (pp. 1-24). Alexandria, VA American College Personnel Association.
Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Secret encounters: Black men, bisexuality, and AIDS in Alabama.
Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 14, 374-393.
Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison sexual violence. New York Elsevier.
Lorber, J . (1996). Beyond the binaries: Depolarizing the categories of sex, sexuality, and
gender. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 143-159.
233
Ludwig, M. R., & Brownell, K. D. (1999). Lesbians, bisexual women, and body image: An
investigation of gender roles and social group affiliation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 25, 89-97.
MacDonald, A. P., Jr. (1983). A little bit of lavender goes a long way: A critique of research
on sexual orientation. The Journal of Sex Research, 9,94-100.
MacInnes, C. (1973). Loving them both: A study of bisexuality and bisexuals. London: Martin Brian & OKeeffe.
Malcolm, J. (2000). Sexual identity development in behaviourally bisexual married men:
Implications for essentialist theories of sexual orientation. Psychology, Evolution, and
Gender, 2,263-299.
Margold, J. (1974, June). Bisexuality: The newest sex style. Cosmopolitan, 189-192.
Matteson, D. R. (1985). Bisexual men in marriage: Is a positive homosexual identity and
stable marriage possible? Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2), 149-171. (Also published
in F. Klein & T. J. Wolf [Eds.]. [1985]. ?2uo lives to lead: Bisexuality in men and women
[pp. 149-1711.New York: Harrington Park Press)
Matteson, D. R. (1999). Intimate bisexual couples. In J . Carlson & L. Sperry (Eds.), The
intimate couple (pp. 439-459). Philadelphia: BrunnerMazel.
May, E. T. (1988). Homeward bound: American families in the cold war era. New York:
Basic Books.
McCaghy, C. H., & Skipper, J. K., Jr. (1969). Lesbian behavior as a n adaptation to the
occupation of stripping. Social Problems, 17,262-270.
McConaghy, N. (1978). Heterosexual experience, marital status, and orientation of homosexual males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 575-581.
McDonald, G. J . (1982). Individual differences in the coming out process for gay men:
Implications for theoretical models. Journal of Homosexuality, 8(1), 47-60.
McIntosh, M. (1968). The homosexual role. Social Problems, 16(2). 182-192. (Reprinted in
The making of the modern homosexual, pp. 30-49, by K. Plummer, Ed., 1981, Totowa,
NJ: Barnes and Noble Books)
McKirnan, D. J., Stokes, J . P., Doll, L., & Burzette, R. G. (1995). Bisexually active men:
Social characteristics and sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 32,65-76.
McLean, K. (2001). Living life in the double closet: Bisexual youth speak out. Hecate,
27(1), 109-118.
Miller, N. (1995). Out of the past: Gay and lesbian history from 1869 to the present. New
York: Vintage.
Miller, M. (2002). Ethically questionable?: Popular media reports on bisexual men and
AIDS. Journal of Bisexuality, 2(1),93-112.
Mohr, J. J., Israel, T., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2001). Counselors attitudes regarding bisexuality as predictors of counselors clinical responses: An analogue study of a female bisexual client. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 212-222.
Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian,
gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353369.
Moore, C. D., & Waterman, C. K. (1999). Predicting self-protection against sexual assault
in dating relationships among heterosexual men and women, gay men, lesbians, and
bisexuals. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 132-140.
Morris, J. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (1999). Who fills out a lesbianquestionnaire? The interrelationship of sexual orientation, years out, disclosure of sexual orientation, sexual
experience with women, and participation in the lesbian community. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 23, 537-557.
Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors and outcomes
of outness among lesbian and bisexual women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
71, 61-71
Morrow, K. M., & Allsworth, J . E. (2000). Sexual risk in lesbians and bisexual women.
Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 4, 159-165.
234
P. RUST
Morse, C. R. (1989). Exploring the bisexual alternative: A view from another closet (Masters thesis, University of Arizona, 1989). Masters Abstracts International, 28, 320.
Morse, E. V., Simon, P. M., Balson, P. M., & Osofsky. H. J . (1992). Sexual behavior patterns of customers of male street prostitutes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 347-357.
Morse, E. V., Simon, P. M., Osofsky, H. J., Balson, P. M., & Gaumer, H. R. (1991). The male
street prostitute: A vector for transmission of HIV infection into the heterosexual
world. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 535-539.
Murray, S. 0. (1984). Social theory, homosexual realities. New York: Gai Sabre Monographs.
Myers, A,, Taub, J., Morris, J. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (1999). Beauty mandates and the
appearance obsession: Are lesbian and bisexual women better off? Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 3(4), 15-26.
Myers, M. F. (1991). Marital therapy with HIV-infected men and their wives. Psychiatric
Annals, 21, 466-470.
Myron, N., & Bunch, C. (Eds.). (1975). Introduction. In Lesbianism and the womens movement (pp. 9-13). Baltimore, MD: Diana Press.
Nacci, P. L. (1978, Januaryrnebruary). Sexual assault in prisons. American Journal of
Correction, 40, 30-31.
Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. R. (1984, March). Sex and sexual aggression in Federal prisons.
Federal Probation, 48,46-53.
Nichols, M. (1985, September). Relationships between sexual behavior, erotic arousal,
romantic attraction, and self-labeled sexual orientation. Paper presented a t the Annual
Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, San Diego, CA.
Nichols, M. (1988). Bisexuality in women: Myths, realities, and implications for therapy.
Women and Therapy, 7,235-252.
Nichols, M. (1990). Lesbian relationships: Implications for the study of sexuality and gender. In D. P. McWhirter, s. A. Sanders, & J . M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexualitylheterosexuality; Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 350-3641, New York; Oxford University
Press.
Norman, A. D., Perry, M. J., Stevenson, L. Y., Kelly, J . A., Roffman, R. A., & HIV Prevention Community Collaborative. (1996, July/August). Lesbian and bisexual women in
small cities-At risk for HIV? Public Health Reports, 111, 347-352.
Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality; The psychology and politics of a n invisible minority (pp. 217-2391, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
OConnor, P. (1997). Warning! Contents under heterosexual pressure. Hypatia, 12(3), 183188.
Padgug, R. A. (1979). Sexual matters: On conceptualizing sexuality in history. Radical
History Review, 20,3-23.
Pattatucci, A. M. L., & Hamer, D. H. (1995).Development and familiality of sexual orientation in females. Behavior Genetics, 25, 407-420.
Patrick, E. J. (2000).Bi: Were not confused. Ms. Magazine, 11(1),11.
Paul, J . P. (1983/1984). The bisexual identity: An idea without social recognition. Journal
of Homosexuality, 9(2/3),45-63.
Paul, J . P. (1985). Bisexuality: Reassessing our paradigms of sexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2),21-34.
Peterson, L. W. (2001).The married man on-line. Journal of Bisexuality, 1(2/3), 191-209.
Pillard, R. C. (1990).The Kinsey scale: Is it familial? In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, &
J . M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality /heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation
(pp. 88-100). New York Oxford University Press.
Pleak, R. R., & Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L. (1990). Sexual behavior and AIDS knowledge of
young male prostitutes in Manhattan. The Journal of Sex Research, 27, 557-587.
Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
235
Plummer, K. (1981a). Going gay: Identities, life cycles and lifestyles in the male gay
world. In J. Hart & D. Richardson (Eds.), The theory and practice of homosexuality (pp.
93-110). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Plummer, K. (1981b). Homosexual categories: Some research problems in the labelling
perspective of homosexuality. In K. Plummer (Ed.), The making of the modern homosexual (pp. 53-75). London: Hutchinson.
Pomeroy, W. B. (1972). Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research. New York: Harper &
Row.
Ponse, B. (1978). Identities i n the lesbian world: The social construction of self. Westport,
C T Greenwood Press.
Propper, A. M. (1978). Lesbianism in female and coed correctional institutions. Journal of
Homosexuality, 3,265-274.
Propper, A. M. (1981). Prison homosexuality: Myth and reality. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Radicalesbians. (1970). The woman-identified woman. (Originally distributed a t the Second Congress t o Unite Women in 1970. Later published in 1972 in The Ladder, 14, 6-8,
and in numerous other publications including Come out! Selections from the Radical
Gay Liberation newspaper [pp. 49-551. [19701. New York Times Change Press)
Randen, H. (2001). Bi signs and wonders: Robyn Ochs and the Bisexual resource guide.
Journal of Bisexuality, 1(1),5-26.
Rankow, E. J., & Tessaro, I. (1998). Cervical cancer risk and papanicolaou screening in a
sample of lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Family Practice, 47, 139-143.
Remez, L. (2000). As many lesbians have had sex with men, taking a full sexual history is
important. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 97-98.
Reiss, A. J. (1961). The social integration of queers and peers. Social Problems, 9, 102120.
Richardson, D. (1984). The dilemma of essentiality in homosexual theory. Journal of
Homosexuality, 9(2/3), 79-90.
Richardson, D. (2000). The social construction of immunity: HIV risk perception and prevention among lesbians and bisexual women. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 2,33-49.
Rifkin, H. A. (1968). Homosexuality in marriage. In E. S. Rosenbaum & I. Alger (Eds.),
The marriage relationship (pp. 197-207). New York: Basic Books.
Rogers, S. M., & Turner, C . F. (1991). Male-male sexual contact in the U.S.A.: Findings
from five sample surveys, 1970-1990. The Journal ofSex Research, 28,491-519.
Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Hunter, J., Exner, T., Gwadz, M., & Keller, A. M.
(1996). The psychosexual development of urban lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. The
Rosario, M., Hunter, J., Maguen, S., Gwadz, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The coming-out
process and its adaptational and health-related associations among gay, lesbian, and
bisexual youths: Stipulation and exploration of a model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 133-160.
Rose, S., & Stevens, C . (Eds.). (1996). Bisexual horizons: Politics, histories, lives. London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Rose, S. (2000). Heterosexism and the study of womens romantic and friend relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 56,315-328.
Ross, H. L. (1959). The hustlerin Chicago. Journal of Student Research, 1 , 13-19.
Ross, H. L. (1971). Modes of adjustment of married homosexuals. Social Problems, 18,
385-393.
Ross, H. L. (1972). Odd couples: Homosexuals in heterosexual marriage. Social Problems,
2, 42-49.
Ross, M. W. (1989). Married homosexual men: Prevalence and background. Marriage and
Family Review, 14(314),35-57.
Ross, M. W. (1991). A taxonomy of global behavior. In R. Tielman, M. Carballo, & A. Hendriks (Eds.), Bisexuality and H N I A I D S : A global perspective (pp. 21-26). Buffalo, Ny:
Prometheus Books.
236
P. RUST
Ross, M. W., & Paul, J . P. (1992). Beyond gender: The basis of sexual attraction in bisexual men and women. Psychological Reports, 71, 1283-1290.
Rothblum, E. D. (2000). Sexual orientation and sex in womens lives: Conceptual and
methodological issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 193-204.
Rothblum, E. D., & Factor, R. (2001). Lesbians and their sisters as a control group: Demographic and mental health factors. Psychological Science, 12, 63-69.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Koopman, C., Dopkins, S.
C., & Davies, M. (1994). Sexual and substance use acts of gay and bisexual male adolescents in New York City. The Journal of Sex Research, 31,47-57.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Hunter, J., & Rosario, M. (1994). Suicidal behavior and gayrelated stress among gay and bisexual male adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 9, 498-508.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Marelich, W. D., & Srinivasan, S. (1999). HIV risk among homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual male and female youths. Archives of Sexual Behauior, 28, 159-177.
Rowland, D. L. (1995). The psychobiology of sexual arousal and behavior. L. Diamant & R.
D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity (pp.
19-42). Westport, C T Greenwood.
Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward a n anthropology of
women (pp. 157-210). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Rubin, S. (1983, Sept. 2). How bisexuals face a hostile world. Sun Francisco Chronicle, p.
unknown.
Rupp, L. J. (2001). Categories of sexuality: Romantic friendship. In A. M. Black (Ed.),
Modern American queer history. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Rust, P. C. (1992). The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and behavior among
lesbian and bisexual women. Social Problems, 39, 366-386.
Rust, P. C. (1993a). Coming out in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society, 7,50-77.
Rust, P. C. (1993b). Neutralizing the political threat of the marginal woman: Lesbians
beliefs about bisexual women. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 214-228.
Rust, P. C. (1995a, September 23). Bisexual experiences, identities, and politics. Paper presented at the International Academy of Sex Research Annual Meeting, Provincetown,
MA.
Rust, P. C. (199513).Bisexuality and the challenge to lesbian politics: Sex, loyalty, and revolution. New York: New York University Press.
Rust, P. C. (1996a). Finding a sexual identity and community: Therapeutic implications
and cultural assumptions in scientific models of coming out. In E. D. Rothblum & L. A.
Bond (Eds.), Preventing heterosexism and homophobia (pp. 87-123). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Rust, P. C. (199613). Managing multiple identities: Diversity among bisexual women and
men. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of a n inuisible
minority (pp. 53-83). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
Rust, P. C. (1996~).Monogamy and polyamory: Relationship issues for bisexuals. In B. A.
Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of a n inuisible minority (pp.
127-1481,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rust, P. C. (1996d). Sexual identity and bisexual identities: The struggle for self-description in a changing sexual landscape. In B. Beemyn & M. Eliason (Eds.), Queer studies:
A lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender anthology (pp. 64-86). New York: New York
University Press.
Rust, P. C. (1999, June). Lesbianism and bisexuality: Cultural categories and the distortion of human sexual experience. Paper presented a t the 25th International Academy of
Sex Research Annual Meeting, Stony Brook, New York.
Rust, P. C. R. (2000a). Bisexuality: A contemporary paradox for women. Journal of Social
Issues, 56, 205-221.
237
Rust, P. C. R. (2000b). Bisexuality in the United States: A social science reader. New York
Columbia University Press.
Rust, P. C. (2001a). Make me a map: Bisexual mens images of bisexual community. Journal of Bisexuality, 1(213),47-108.
Rust, P. C. (2001b). Two many and not enough: The meanings of bisexual identities. Journal of Bisexuality, 1(1), 31-68.
Rust, P. C. R. (2002, March 8). %o halves or one whole? The challenge of theorizing and
living bisexuality. Paper presented a t the Eastern Sociological Society Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality: A comprehensive investigation. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Salzman, L. (1965). Latent homosexuality. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Sexual inversion: The
multiple roots of homosexuality (pp. 234-2471, New York Basic Books.
San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH). Prevention Services Branch, AIDS
Office. (1993). Health behaviors among lesbian and bisexual women: A communitybased womens health survey. San Francisco, CA: Author.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1995). An exploratory study of pubertal maturation timing and
self-esteem among gay and bisexual male youths. Developmental Psychology, 31, 56-64.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths. Journal of
Adolescence, 24, 5-13.
Scacco, A. M., Jr. (1975). Rape in prison. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas.
Schilder, A., Kennedy, C., Strathdee, S. A., Goldstone, I., Hogg, R., & OShaugnessy, M.
(1999). A lot of things I hide: Understanding disclosure in the care of HIV-positive
bisexual men. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 3, 119-126.
Schofield, M. (1965). Sociological aspects of homosexuality: A comparative study of three
types of homosexuals. Boston: Little, Brown.
Schwartz, P., & Blumstein, P. (1998). The acquisition of sexual identity: Bisexuality. In E.
J. Haeberle & R. Gindorf (Eds.), Bisexualities: The ideology and practice of sexual contact with both men and women (pp. 182-212). New York: Continuum.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Seidman, S. (1991) Romantic longings: Love in America. New York: Routledge.
Seidman, S. (1993). Identity and politics in a postmodern gay culture: Some historical
and conceptual notes. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and
social theory (pp. 105-142). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sell, R. L., & Petrulio, C. (1996). Sampling homosexuals, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians for
public health research: A review of the literature from 1990 to 1992. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 31-48.
Shively, M. G., & De Cecco, J . P. (1977). Components of sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 41-48.
Shively, M. G., Jones, C., & De Cecco, J. P. (1983184). Research on sexual orientation: Definitions and methods. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 127-136.
Shively, M. G., Rudolph, J . R., & De Cecco, J . P. (1978). The identification of the social sexrole stereotypes. Journal of Homosexuality, 3,225-233.
Shuster, R. (1987). Sexuality as a continuum: The bisexual identity. In The Boston lesbian
psychologies collective (Ed.), Lesbian psychologies (pp. 56-71). Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Simon, P. M., Morse, E. V., Osofsky, H. J., & Balson, P. M. (1994). HIV and young male
street prostitutes: A brief report. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 193-197.
Smith, E. M., Johnson, S. R., & Guenther, S. M. (1985). Health care attitudes and experiences during gynecologic care among lesbians and bisexuals. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 1085-1087.
Smith, T. W. (1991). Adult sexual behavior in 1989: Number of partners, frequency of
intercourse and risk of AIDS. Family Planning Perspectives, 23, 102-107.
P. RUST
Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1975). The female world of love and ritual: Relations between
women in 19th century America, Signs, 1, 1-29.
Somerville, S. (1996). Scientific racism and the invention of the homosexual body. In B.
Beemyn & M. Eliason (Eds.), Queer studies: A lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
anthology (pp. 241-2611, New York New York University Press.
Spalding, L. R., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). The unfaithful lover: Heterosexuals perceptions of
bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 611-625.
Stein, A. (1999). Without contraries is no progression: S/M/Bi-nary thinking, and the
Lesbian Purity Test. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3(3), 45-59.
Steinman, E. (2001). Interpreting the invisibility of male bisexuality: Theories, interactions, politics. Journal of Bisexuality, 1(2/3), 15-45.
Stevens, P. E. (1994). HIV prevention education for lesbians and bisexual women: A cultural analysis of a community intervention. Social Science & Medicine, 39, 1565-1578.
Stokes, J. P., Damon, W., & McKirnan, D. J. (1997). Predictors of movement toward homosexuality: A longitudinal study of bisexual men. The Journal ofsex Research, 34, 304-312.
Stokes, J . P., McKirnan, D. J., & Burzette, R. G. (1993). Sexual behavior, condom use, disclosure of sexuality, and stability of sexual orientation in bisexual men. The Journal of
Sex Research, 30, 203-213.
Stokes, J. P., Taywaditep, K., Vanable, P., & McKirnan, D. J. (1996). Bisexual men, sexual
behavior, and HIV/AIDS. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 149-168). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
Storms, M. D. (1978). Sexual orientation and self-perception. In P. Pilner, K. Blankstein,
& I. Spiegel (Eds.), Advances in the study of communication and affect: Perception of
emotion in selfand others (pp. 165-180). New York: Plenum.
Taub, J. (1999). Bisexual women and beauty norms: A qualitative examination. Journal of
Lesbian Studies, 3(4), 27-36.
Taywaditep, K. J., & Stokes, J . P. (1998). Male bisexualities: A cluster analysis of men
with bisexual experience. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10(1), 15-41.
Terman, L. M. (1948). Kinseys Sexual behavior in the human male: Some comments
and criticisms. Psychological Bulletin, 45,443-459.
Tewksbury, R. (1989a). Fear of sexual assault in prison inmates. The Prison Journal, 69,
62-71.
Tewksbury, R. (1989b). Measures of sexual behavior in a n Ohio prison. Sociology and
Social Research, 74,34-39.
Thompson, B. Y. (1999). The politics of bisexual / biracial identity: A study of bisexual and
mixed race women of AsianlPacific Islander descent. Reno, NV That Damn Book! and
Money to Authors Ink. Pub.
Thompson, B. Y. (2000, January). Fence sitters, switch hitters, and bi-bi girls: An exploration of Hapa and bisexual identities. Frontiers, 20(1/2), 171-181.
Trumbach, R. (1977). Londons sodomites: Homosexual behavior and Western Culture in
the 18th century. Journal of Social History, 2 , 1-33.
Tucker, N. (Ed.). (1995). Bisexual politics: Theories, queries, & visions. Binghamton, Ny.
Haworth Press.
Turell, S. C. (2000). A descriptive analysis of same-sex relationship violence for a diverse
sample. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 281-293.
Turner, C. F., Miller, H. G., & Moses, L. E. (1989). Sexual behavior and AIDS. In C.
Turner, H. Miller, & L. Moses (Eds.), AIDS, Sexual behavior and intravenous drug use
(pp. 73-185). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Twining, A. (1983). Bisexual women: Identity in adult development (Doctoral dissertation,
Boston University School of Education, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44,
1340A.
Udis-Kessler, A. (1996). Identity/politics: Historical sources of the bisexual movement. In
B. Beemyn & M. Eliason (Eds.), Queer studies: A lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender anthology (pp. 52-63). New York: New York University Press.
239
Ulrichs, K. H. (1864). Forschungen iiber d a s Rathsel der mannmannlichen Liebe

[Researches on the riddle of love between men]. Leipzig: Author.
U. S. National Center for Health Statistics. (1993). Annual summary of births, marriages,
divorces and deaths: United States, 1992. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 41. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
divorces and deaths: United States, 1994. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 43. Washington, DC: U S . Government Printing Office.
divorces and deaths: United States, 1996. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 45. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Valanis, B. G., Bowen, D. J., Bassford, T., Whitlock, E., Charney, P., & Carter, R. A. (2000).
Sexual orientation and health. Archives of Family Medicine, 9 , 843-853.
Van Wyk, P. H., & Geist, C. S. (1984). Psychosocial development of heterosexual, bisexual,
and homosexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 505-544.
Vernallis, K. (1999). Bisexual monogamy: Twice the temptation but half the fun? Journal
of Social Philosophy, 30, 347-368.
Visano, L. A. (1990). The impact of age on paid sexual encounters. Journal of Homosexuality, 20(3/4), 207-226.
Voeller, B. (1990). Some uses and abuses of the Kinsey scale. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A.
Saunders, & J . M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/ heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual
orientation (pp. 32-38). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wallis, W. A. (1949). Statistics of the Kinsey report. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 44(248), 463-484.
Ward, D. A., & Kassebaum, G. G. (1964). Homosexuality: A mode of adaptation in a prison
for women. Social Problems, 12, 159-177.
Ward, D. A., & Kassebaum, G. G. (1965). Womens prison: Sex and social structure.
Chicago: Aldine.
Warren, C. A. B. (1974). Identity and community in thegay world. New York: John Wiley.
Weeks, J. (1977). Coming out: Homosexual politics in Britain from the 19th century to the
present. London: Quartet Books.
Weeks, J. (1981a). Discourse, desire and sexual deviance: Some problems in a history of
homosexuality. In K. Plummer, (Ed.), The making of the modern homosexual (pp. 76111).London: Hutchinson.
Weeks, J . (1981b). Sex, politics and society: The regulation of sexuality since 1800. Essex,
U K Longman.
Weeks, J. (1982). The development of sexual theory and sexual politics. In M. Brake (Ed.),
Human social relations: A Reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Weeks, J. (1985). Sexuality and its discontents. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Weeks, J . (1986). Sexuality. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding
bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (2001). Bisexuals a t midlife: Commitment, salience, and identity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 30, 180-208.
Weinrich, J. D. (1988). The periodic table model of the gender transpositions: Part 11. The
Weisberg, D. K. (1985). Children of the night: A study of adolescent prostitution. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Weise, E. R. (1992). CZoser to home: Bisexuality & feminism. Seattle, WA Seal Press.
Westphal, C. (1870). Die contrare Sexualempfindung, Symptom eines neuropathischen
(psychopathischen) Zustandes [Contrary sexual feeling: Symptom of a neuropathic
(psychopathic) condition]. Archiv fur Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten (Archives of
Psychiatry and Nervous Diseases), 2 , 73-108.
Williams, M. J . K. (1999). Sexual pathways: Adapting to dual sexual attraction. Westport,
240
P. RUST
C T Praeger.
Wold, C., Seage, G. R., 111, Lenderking, W. R., Mayer, K. H., Cai, B., Heeren, T., et al.
(1998). Unsafe sex i n men who have sex with both men and women. Journal o f
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrouirology, 17, 361-367.
Wolf, D. G. (1979). The lesbian community. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wolf, T. J. (1985). Marriages of bisexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2), 135-148.
(Also published in F. Klein & T. J. Wolf [Eds.]. [19851. Z h o lives to lead: Bisexuality in
men and women [pp. 135-1481. New York: Harrington Park Press)
Wolf, T, J. (1987). Group counseling for bisexual men. The Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 12,162-165.
Wood, R. W., Krueger, L. E., Pearlman, T., & Goldbaum, G. (1993). HIV transmission:
Womens risk from bisexual men. American Journal ofpublic Health, 83, 1757-1759.
Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New
York: Plenum.
World Health Organization. (1992, December 7-9). Information consultation on interventions to prevent HIV transmission among behaviorally bisexual men. Geneva: Author.
Yates, G. L., MacKenzie, R. G., Pennbridge, J., & Swofford, A. (1991). A risk profile comparison of homeless youth involved in prostitution and homeless youth not involved.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 12,545-548.
Yoshino, K. (2000). The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure. Stanford Law Review, 52,
353-459.
Young, S. (1992). Breaking silence about the B-word: Bisexual identity and lesbian-feminist discourse. In E. R. Weise (Ed.), Closer to home: Bisexuality & feminism (pp. 75-81).
Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Young, R. M., Weissman, G., & Cohen, J. B. (1992). Assessing risk in the absence of information: HIV risk among women injection-drug users who have sex with women. AIDS
&Public Policy Journal, 7, 175-183.
Young, R. M., Friedman, S. R., Case, P., Asencio, M. W., & Clatts, M. (2000). Women injection drug users who have sex with women exhibit increased HIV infection and risk
behaviors. Journal of Drug Issues, 30,499-523.
Zinik, G. A. (1985). Identity conflict o r adaptive flexibility? Bisexuality reconsidered.
Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2), 7-19. (Also published in F. Klein & T. J. Wolf [Eds.].
[1985]. Zho lives to lead: Bisexuality in men and women [pp. 7-191. New York: Harrington Park Press)

Bisexuality Research Review

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bisexuality Research Review

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [University College London]

On: 20 October 2013, At: 14:24

Annual Review of Sex Research

Bisexuality: The State of the

Hamilton College , USA

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

Bisexuality: The State of the Union

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

Key Words: biphobia, bisexuality, gay, history of sexuality, lesbian, sexual

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paula C. Rodriguez Rust,

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION

opposite genders-also made it difficult for contemporary lay people

Historical and Cultural Processes Underlying the Paradox of

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

the roles of husband/father and wife/mother (Katz, 19951.l Men and

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION

idea that fulfillment as a man or woman meant successful fulfillment of

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

Contemporary Popular Attitudes Toward Bisexuality

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY THE STATE OF THE UNION

1984). LUGS, or Lesbians Until Graduation, for example, are women

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

2For discussions of lesbian feminist constructions of lesbian identity, including the

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION

their husbands surfaced. News magazines in the 1980s published

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

Francisco Chronicle published How Bisexuals Face a Hostile World

Popular Attitudes Guide Scientific Research

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY THE STATE OF THE UNION

sexually identified males including male juvenile delinquent^.^

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION

(1992) described male prostitutes as a vector for transmission of HIV

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION

However, in the wake of a growing bisexual political movement,

New Models of Sexuality: ReconceptualizingBisexuality

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

scales, representing seven dimensions of sexual orientation on which

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY THE STATE OF THE UNION

Sedgwick, 1990; Weinrich, 1988). Others argued for the dereification of

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

dents were recruited through conferences on sexuality, meetings of

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY: THE STATE OF THE UNION

female sex partners (average 43.59 lifetime and 6.32 in 6 months),

The Prevalence of Bisexuality

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013

BISEXUALITY THE STATE OF THE UNION

Downloaded by [University College London] at 14:24 20 October 2013