Yoshino - The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure

Yale Law School
Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository

Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
1-1-2000
The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure

Kenji Yoshino
Yale Law School
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers

Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research
Commons
Recommended Citation
Yoshino, Kenji, "The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure" (2000). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 4384.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4384
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship at Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship Series by an authorized administrator of Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. For
more information, please contact julian.aiken@yale.edu.
ofBisexual
Contract
TheEpistemic
Erasure
KenjiYoshino*
In thisarticle,Professor KenjiYoshino seeksto explainwhythecategory

ofbisexuality has beenerasedin contemporary American politicaland legal
discourse.He firstarguesthattheinvisibility ofbisexualityrelativeto homo-
sexualitydoesnotreflect ofthoseorientations
theincidences inthepopulation.
Defining bisexualityas thepossessionofmorethanincidental desireforboth
sexes,Yoshino showsthatthemajorsexuality studiesdemonstrate thattheinci-
denceofbisexuality is infactgreaterthanor comparable to theincidenceof
homosexuality. Yoshinoexplainstheerasureof bisexuality bypositingthat
bothself-identifiedheterosexuals
andself-identifiedhomosexuals haveoverlap-
pinginterests in theerasureofbisexuality thatlead themintoan "epistemic
contract" ofbisexualerasure.Theseinterests include:(1) thestabilizationof
exclusivesexualorientation (2) theretention
categories; ofsexas an important
diacriticalaxis; and (3) theprotectionofnormsofmonogamy.Notingthat
suchcontracts tendto becomevisibleonlywhentheyare challenged, Yoshino
describeshowbisexualshave increasingly contestedtheirownerasure. Fi-
nally,Yoshinoexamines theeffects
ofbisexualinvisibility
and visibility
in the
legal realm,focusingon thesexualharassment jurisprudence of recentdec-
ades.
* AssociateProfessor,
Yale Law School. I thankAkhilAmar,Ian Ayres,JenniferGerarda
Brown,ArielaDubler,Bill Eskridge,
OrenIzenberg, RobertPost,Bill Rubenstein,
VickiSchultz,
RevaSiegel,andAmandaTyler.I amalso grateful toparticipants
inworkshops at ColumbiaLaw
School,Fordham Law School,andYale Law School,as wellas studentsinmyTheorizingSexual-
ityseminarat Yale and LarryLessig'sAdvancedConstitutionalLaw seminarat Harvard.Rick
Baker,RomanaMancini,RavennaMichalsen, ZacharyPotter, Rose Saxe,andEricSonnenschein
supplied
excellentresearch
assistance.
353
This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 STANFORDLAWREVIEW [Vol.52:353
INTRODUCTION ..... 356

I. THE ERASUREOF BISEXUALS ....363
A. BisexualInvisibility . . .364
1. Bisexualinvisibility
defined . .364
2. Evidenceofbisexualinvisibility . .368
B. BisexualErasure . . .370
1. Bisexualitydefined . .370
2. Thestudies . .377
a. Kinsey(1948 & 1953).380
b. MastersandJohnson(1979).382
c. JanusandJanus(1993).383
d. Wellings(1994).383
e. Laumann(1994).385
f. Critiquesofthestudies........................................... 386
C. BisexualErasureas a Cause ofBisexualInvisibility ... 388
II. THE EPISTEMICCONTRACTOF BISEXUALERASURE........................... 388
A. DifferentExplanations . . 389
............................
B. TheEpistemicContract Defined . . .........................................
391
C. StrategiesofErasure . . 395
.............................
1. Straight deployments ofthestrategies . 395
.........................
2. Gaydeployments ofthestrategies . 397
............................
D. TheEpistemicContract as a Cause ofBisexualErasure ... 399
III. MONOSEXUALINVESTMENTSIN THEEPISTEMICCONTRACT.......... 399
A. StabilizationofSexualOrientation . ..........................................400
1. Sharedinvestment ......................................... 400
2. Straight investment ........................................ 402
3. Gayinvestment ........................................... 404
B. BisexualityDestabilizesthePrimacyofSex.................................. 410
1. Sharedinvestment ......................................... 411
a. Destabilization
........................................... 412
b. Thetensionbetween publicandprivate
treatments sex
of ........................................... 413
2. Straight investment ........................................ 415
3. Gayinvestment ........................................... 417

Jan.2000] BISEXUALERASURE 355
C. Bisexuality
DestabilizesNormsofMonogamy ..............................
420
1. Shared investment.............................................. 421
2. Straightinvestment .............................................. 423
3. Gayinvestment.............................................. 426
D. OverlappingMonosexualInvestments as a Cause
oftheEpistemicContract .............................................. 428
IV. SELF-IDENTIFIEDBISEXUALSANDTHEEPISTEMICCONTRACT....... 429
A. BisexualCapitulationtotheEpistemicContract 430
..........................
B. BisexualResistancetotheEpistemicContract 431
.............................
C. TheDissolutionoftheEpistemicContract . ........................
434
V. BISEXUALITYANDSEXUALHARASSMENTLAW. .................................434
A. A Summary oftheDevelopment oftheSexual
Harassment Jurisprudence ..................................... 436
B. BisexualVisibility-The Recognition and Closingofthe
BisexualHarassment Exemption . 439
................................
1. Therecognition ofthebisexualharassment exemption-
bisexualvisibility............... ............................... 440
2. (Incoherently) closingthebisexualharassment
exemption-bisexual invisibility .............................................
442
3. (Coherently) closingthebisexualharassment
exemption-bisexual visibility (again).................................... 444
C. Recognizingand ClosingtheHorseplayExemption .....................446
1. Understanding horseplay-
thehomosocialand thehomoerotic 448
........................................
2. Recognizing thehorseplay exemption-
bisexualinvisibility .............................................. 450
3. Closingthehorseplay exemption-
bisexualvisibility............... ............................... 451
D. SexualHarassment at a Crossroads . 454
.............................
1. Thepost-Oncalestatusquo.............................................. 454
2. Bisexualityas goad .................. ............................ 457
E. OtherApplications .................... .......................... 458
CONCLUSION.............................................. . . 460

INTRODUCTION
Teachinga seminar on SexualOrientationandtheLaw,I facedan old

inconsistencyso frontally
thatitbecamedifficulttoavoidgiving itsustained
I beganthecourseinwhatappearstobe a common
attention. way,lbypos-
ingbasic questions aboutsexualorientation. I askedwhycontemporary
American society2organizespeopleaccordingtotheirsexualities;3whywe
do so onthebasisofsexualorientationinparticular;4
andwhy,whenclassi-
fyingbysexualorientation,we insistondoingso withthebinary system of
heterosexualandhomosexual.5 In discussing
thelastquestion,
I adducedthe
1. A leadingcasebookonsexualorientation
andthelaw,forexample,
beginswithsuchan in-
unit. See WILLIAMB. RUBENSTEIN,
troductory CASES ANDMATERIALSON SEXUALORIENTATION
ANDTHELAW1-40(2d ed. 1997)(presenting background materialsdiscussingsexualclassifica-
tions).
2. Thesetemporal andgeographical restrictions
applyto thisentireanalysis.Theserestric-
tionspartially
recognize thattheconcept oforientation
is culturally
specific.See note77 infraand
accompanying text(describingLatinbisexuality).
Thatrecognition, however,willunfortunatelybe
incomplete,insofaras itignoresvariations
withinmodemAmerican societybasedon,forexample,
culture,race,andclass. See, e.g.,WillRoscoe,Howto Becomea Beardache:Towarda Unified
Analysisof GenderDiversity,in THIRD SEX, THiRD GENDER:BEYOND SEXUALDIMORPHISMIN
CULTUREANDHISTORY329, 330-49(Gilbert Herdted., 1994)(describing
theNativeAmerican
berdache,an identity
basedon genderatypicality thatcutsacrosstheorientation consid-
categories
eredhere,as an identity
thatis moresociallysalientinmanyNativeAmerican societiesthanthose
orientation
categories).
3. Resistance totheclassification
ofpersons accordingtotheirsexualities
canbe seeninthat
usageoftheword"queer"whichrefers toindividuals whofalloutsideoftherealmofthe"normal,"
eitherbecauseof theirsexualityor forsomeotherreason.See MichaelWarner, Introduction
to
FEAROF A QUEERPLANET:QUEERPOLITICSANDSOCIALTHEORYvii, xxvi-xxviii(Michael War-
nered., 1993). Thisusage's"aggressive impulseofgeneralization,"id. at xxvi,resiststhereifica-
tionof sexualityas an axis ofdemarcation byrecasting theconflict
betweensexualdevianceand
sexualnormalcy as onebetween socialdevianceandsocialnormalcy.
4. Resistanceto theclassification of personsaccording to theirsexualorientations can be
foundin Eve Sedgwick'sprovocative list of alternative
classifications.See EVE KoSOFSKY
SEDGWICK,EPISTEMOLOGYOF THECLOSET 25-26(1990). Sedgwick notesthatevenifwe setout
to distinguish
betweenpeoplebasedon theirsexualities, manyotheraxes besidessex of object
choiceareavailable.See id. at 25. Forexample,"[s]exuality makesup a largeshareof theself-
perceivedidentityof somepeople,a smallshareof others"';"[s]omepeoplespenda lotof time
thinkingaboutsex,others little";and"[s]omepeopleliketohavea lotofsex,others littleornone."
Id. Indeed,Sedgwick contends thattheriseofsexofobjectchoiceas thecritical axisofdefinition
was a contingentandpuzzlinghistorical development outof an erain whichsuchotheraxeshad
analogousdiacriticalforce.See id.at8-9.
5. Resistanceto theclassificationofpersonsaccording to a binarysystem of sexualorienta-
tioncanbe found inAlfred Kinsey'sclassicstatement:
Males do notrepresent twodiscretepopulations,heterosexual and homosexual.The worldis
notto be dividedintosheepand goats. Not all thingsare blacknorall thingswhite. It is a
fundamental of taxonomy thatnaturerarelydeals withdiscretecategories.Onlythehuman
mindinventscategoriesand triesto forcefactsintoseparatedpigeon-holes.The livingworld
is a continuum in each and everyone of itsaspects. The soonerwe learnthisconcerninghu-
mansexualbehaviorthesoonerwe shallreacha soundunderstanding oftherealitiesofsex.
ALFRED C. KiNSEY, WARDELLB. POMEROY& CLYDE E. MARTIN,SEXUALBEHAVIORIN THE
HUMANMALE 639 (1948) [hereinafter KINSEYET AL.,MALE].

view-powerful inmodemAmerican culturefromatleastthepublication of

theKinseystudies6 onward-that sexualorientation arraysitselfalonga
continuum to exclusivehomosexuality.7
fromexclusiveheterosexuality I
notedthatthisviewencouragedus tothinkofthestraight/gay binary as de-
finingtheendsofa continuumthatcouldbe stretched,accordion-like,toac-
commodate everfinergradations
of cross-sexand same-sexdesire. This
meantrecognizing a group-often calledbisexuals-onthe intermediate
stretchofthecontinuum, of a group-sometimes
as wellas thepossibility
onthecontinuum
calledasexuals-notrepresented at all.8 Indeed,I argued
6. ALFRED C. KINSEY, WARDELLB. POMEROY,CLYDE E. MARTIN& PAUL GEBHARD,

SEXUALBEHAVIORIN THEHuMANFEMALE(1953) [hereinafter KINSEYET AL., FEMALE];KINSEY
ET AL.,MALE,supranote5.
7. See Carol Queen, Sexual Diversityand BisexualIdentity, in BISEXUAL POLITICS:
THEORIES,QUERIES,& VISIONS 151, 152 (Naomi Tuckered., 1995) (notingthe importanceof the
Kinseycontinuum).
8. It is withsome regretthatI have decidednotto attempta systematicdiscussionof asexuals
in thisarticle,especiallysince asexuals are, if anything,
morelikelythanbisexuals to be erased in
sexualitydiscourse. To concede thatthereare two formsof desire-cross-sex and same-sex de-
sire-is to recognizethe analyticpossibilityof at least fourkindsof persons. These include: (1)
thosewho harborcross-sexbut not same-sexdesire;(2) thosewho harborsame-sexbut not cross-
sex desire; (3) those who harborboth formsof desire; and (4) those who harborneitherformof
desire. Yet even thosewho acknowledgethatorientation arraysitselfon a continuumspanningthe
firstthreecategoriesoftenignorethe factthatthecontinuumfailsto representthe fourth.This is
somewhatsurprising, as thenumberof individualsin thiscategoryis notinsignificant.See Naomi
Mezey,Dismantling
the Wall:Bisexuality
and thePossibilities
ofSexualIdentity
Classification
Based on Acts, 10 BERKELEYWOMEN'SL.J.98, 106-07(1995) (citingtheKinseyreportand noting
thatthenumberof asexuals is "notnegligible"). Kinsey,forexample,foundthatasexuals included
14 to 19 percentof unmarriedwomenbetweentheages of twentyand thirty-five. See KINSEYET
AL.,FEMALE,supra note6, at 499.
My regretis made keen by theconvergencesbetweenbisexual and asexual erasure,mostnota-
bly therefusalby bothself-identified straightsand self-identified
gays to acknowledgeeithercate-
gory. Thus asexuals,like bisexuals,are proneto beingaccused of duplicityor falseconsciousness,
or, more specifically,of being closeted gays. See JEFFREYS. NEVID, Lois FICHNER-RATHUS &
SPENCERA. RATHUS,HUMANSEXUALITYIN A WORLD OF DIVERSITY 302 (1995) (describing
asexuals as a subset of homosexuals). See generallyALAN P. BELL & MARTINS. WEINBERG,
HOMOSEXUALITIES: A STUDY OF DIVERSITYAMONGMEN ANDWOMEN(1978) (discussingasex-
uals throughout as subsetsof male and femalehomosexuals).
The decision to defera discussionof asexuals foranotherday, however,is supportedby the
undertheorized divergencesbetweenbisexualityand asexuality,whichsuggestthatthe two topics
deserve separateanalysis. While bothdoubled and absentdesire appear to threatenstraightsand
gays, theydo so in quite differentways. To takeone crudecut at thatdifference, considerthedis-
parateways in whichthe time-honored conflationof sexualityand sin ramifiesacross bisexuality
and asexuality. If thisconflationleads some to view bisexuals as particularly
culpable because of
their"promiscuous"desire forbothsexes, see notes 353-393 infraand accompanyingtext,it leads
some of thesame people to view asexuals as particularly pure. See Lucinda J. Peach, From Spiri-
tual Descriptionsto Legal Prescriptions:ReligiousImageryof Womanas "Fetal Container"in the
Law, 10 J.L. & RELIGION 73, 76 (1994) (notingthatthetwo templatesof thefemininein theChris-
tiantraditionare Eve and Mary,and thatMary,in contrastto Eve, is portrayedas pure,celibate,and
asexual). But while such purityis oftenascribedto celibacy,see, e.g., GabrielleBrown,The Celi-
bate LifeIs Fulfilling,in HUMAN SEXUALITY 393, 395 (BrunoLeone et al. eds., 1985) (notingthat
celibacy "can be thoughtof as the desire forsomethingmoreeternal,morepermanent"),it is not
obvious whetherthatascriptionapplies equallyto thesubsetof celibateswho are asexual. Celibacy

thatsexualorientationclassificationsthatonlyusedthetwo"monosexual"
terms9 and"homosexual"
"heterosexual" wereunstable andnaive.
As soonas theintroductory unitwas over,however, theinconsistency
occurred.I found myself andtheclassfalling backintothevery"unstable"
usagesI had workedhardto retire-specifically theusagesof thewords
"heterosexual"and"homosexual" as mutually exclusive,cumulativelyex-
haustiveterms.10 Whilewe sometimes ralliedbyusingtheword"queer"
insteadof"gay,""1orbyaddingtherider"orbisexual"to "gay, "12theseef-
fortsweretokenandfitful.In thefaceoflegaldiscussionsl3 andacademic
commentary14 thatwererelentless inreifying thestraight/gaybinary, itwas
difficult
toholdthebisexualsteadily visible,evenas a spectral possibility.
Andwhilethisfailure to resistwhatI had criticized as a distortionwas
ina classthatsought
striking totreat theissueofsexualorientation withso-
phistication,
itwas simultaneously all toorecognizable as an inconsistency
thatriddlesmorequotidian discourse.Manywhowouldnotdenythatbi-
sexualsexistwhenthesubject ofbisexuality arisescannonetheless revert
to
thestraight/gaydichotomy whenthetopicshifts.15 I myself can speakat
lengthaboutbisexualsatonemoment andthen, inthenext,fielda question
may be pure because it constitutesa conquestof thebaser desiresof the body,see id.; if so, the
celibate asexual's claim to purityis attenuatedbecause his licentiousdesire is not overcome,but
ratherabsent. And even if describedas pure,theabsence of desiremay be viewed as a disquieting
purity,insofaras ourhedonicpleasurein othersis viewedby some as a generative,fecundating, and
humanizingforceeven (or perhapsespecially)whensublimated.See Leon R. Kass, The Wisdomof
Repugnance:
WhyWeShouldBan theCloning
ofHumans,
32 VAL.U. L. REv.679,691-92(1998)
("Sexual desire... is thussublimatedintoeroticlongingforwholeness...."). Thus,whilebisexu-
alityand asexualitymay in some senses be viewed as simpleopposites(oversexedv. undersexed),
theysharenegativeconnotations.But theseconnotations, in tum,are differently
negative.
9. Technically,"monosexuality"denotesthe state of possessing one of the two traditional
"sexes" (male or female),as opposed to havingone of thetwo traditional"orientations"(heterosex-
ual or homosexual). See 9 OXFORDENGLISHDICTIONARY1029, (2d ed. 1989) [hereinafter OED].
In thisarticle,however,I followtherisingpracticeof usingthetermin the lattersense. See, e.g.,
RUTH COLKER, HYBRID: BISEXUALS,MULTIRACIALS, AND OTHER MISFITS UNDER AMERICAN
LAW 16 (1996) [hereinafter COLKER,HYBRID].
10. See Mezey, supra note 8, at 98 (describingthe categoriesas exclusive and comprehen-
sive).
11. See MARJORIE GARBER,VICE VERSA:BISEXUALITYANDTHEEROTICISMOF EVERYDAY
LIFE 62-66 (1995) (discussing"queer" as a meansof includingbisexuals withina coalitionmove-
mentof sexual minorities).
12. See Liz A. Highleyman, Identityand Ideas: Strategiesfor Bisexuals,in BISEXUAL
POLITICS,supra note 7, at 73, 83-86 (describingthe"lesbigay"strategyof namingbisexualsalong-
side lesbiansand gay men).
13. See, e.g.,notes48-52 infraand accompanyingtext;notes503-534 infraand accompany-
ing text.
14. See,e.g.,notes60-62infraandaccompanying text.
15. See ChristopherJames,DenyingComplexity:TheDismissalandAppropriationofBisexu-
alityin Queer,Lesbian,and GayTheory, in QUEER STUDIES: A LESBIAN,GAY, BISEXUAL,AND
TRANSGENDER
ANTHOLOGY217, 226 (BrettBeemyn& MickeyEliason eds., 1996).

suchas "IsX straight orgay?"without instinctivelyfeelingas ifanimportant

possibility-the bisexual possibility-has beenelided.
Whatis happening here?Whyis bisexuality so invisible?If we inter-
pretthatinvisibilityas theproduct oferasure, whydoesthaterasure occur?
Whyis bisexuality now becoming sufficiently visiblethatcommentators
havebegunto theorize itsinvisibilityas theresultoferasure?How might
contemporary sexualorientation politicsandlawlookdifferent ifthistrend
toward visibilitycontinues? Thisarticle willoccupyitself withtheseques-
tions.
Framing thequestions inthiswayitself raisesdefinitionalissues.Oneof
thedifficultthings aboutwriting aboutsexuality is thattherearetoomany
distortions
to correct at once. Someofthesedistortions mustbe accepted,
althoughneverwithout thefearthattheywillinfect theresult.I address two
suchdistortions attheoutset.
Thefirstis a qualificationofthedefinition of"bisexual."Inaskingwhy
bisexualsareinvisible and/or I
erased, assumethatthere is a category ofin-
dividualswhocanusefully be denominated as bisexuals.I provisionally de-
finethatcategory below.16I emphasize, however, thatI do notpresent the
categoryofbisexuals (orheterosexuals, homosexuals, orasexuals)as a natu-
ralkindawaiting detection. Whileindividuals harboring bothcross-sex and
same-sex desireclearlyexist,itdoesnotnecessarily followthatsuchindi-
vidualsshouldbe classified togetheras a group.Strictly speaking, then, the
realquestion is notwhybisexuals areerased:onecannoterasesomething
thatdoesnothavematerial existence outsideofone'swriting it,andwhich
onehasneverwritten. Rather thequestion is whywehavedivided theworld
oforientation intocategories thattendto suppress theexistence ofbisexual
desire.
Evenbearing thisinmind, however, I finditdifficulttodiscussthatsup-
pressionwithout isolating thevariousconstituencies thathaveinterests in
orresisting
effectuating it. Whilesociallyconstructed, theconstituencies of
heterosexual,homosexual, bisexual,andasexualhavepolitical andmaterial
consequence. Underscoring theircontingency takesnothing awayfrom their
socialimportance orheuristic utility.I therefore self-consciously retain the
terms.
Thesecondissueis thedefinition of"sex." To possess"bi"-sexual de-
sireimplies
theexistence oftwosexes-maleandfemale.Whilebisexuality
is sometimes seenas eroding thesalienceofthesexbinary,17 itthusnomi-
nallyreifies
thepremise thatthere areonlytwosexes.Thatpremise hasbeen
contestedonthegrounds thata significant portionofthepopulation is inter-
sexedatbirth,withgenitalia thatdonotconform tothetwoconventional sex
16. See textaccompanyingnotes71-109 infra.

categories.18Yeta manwhois attracted towomenandintersexed individu-

als,butnottomen,is notconsidered a bisexual,becausetheintersexed do
notcountas a sexforthesepurposes.'9 Bisexuality also suggests thatthese
twosexesaredefined biologically
ratherthanculturally.20 Thisis theclassic
divisionmadebetween anatomical sexandsocialgender.21 Thusa lesbian
whois attracted toboth"butch" and"femme" womenwillfailtheclassical
definitionof a bisexual, becauseeventhough sheis attractedto twoindi-
vidualswhomight be saidtohavedifferent "genders," bothofthemareof
thesame"sex."
I willagainleaveboththesepremises-that therearetwosexes(male
andfemale)andthatanatomical sex canbe coherently distinguishedfrom
socialgender-unchallenged forthepurposes ofthisanalysis.I wishtorec-
ognizethesepremises, however, as deeplycontestable ones,andto gesture
brieflytoward thecostsofleaving themunassailed.First, theintersexed oc-
cupya placebetween thetwoconventionally ordained sexes(maleandfe-
male)thatthebisexualoccupiesbetween thetwoconventionally ordained
orientations. Makingbisexuality visibleon thegrounds thatintermediate
categoriesdeserve socialattention whilelettingintersexualityremain invisi-
blethuscreates anironicasymmetry. Moreimportantly, theelisionofinter-
sexualityrepresents a missedopportunity tointerrogate orientation. Forjust
as bisexualitychallenges ourconceptions ofsex,22 so toomight intersexual-
itybe usedtochallenge ourconceptions oforientation. To see this,think of
themanwhois attracted moretointersexed individualsthantoeither menor
towomen.23 Whatis thisman'sorientation? Whatifhe is attracted onlyto
theintersexed? Is thebisexual, whois sometimes understood to be "pan-
sexual,"alsounderstood tobe attracted
totheintersexed?
Morefamiliarly, thedistinctionbetween sexandgender hasbeenunder
increasingfirein contemporary queertheory, suchthatitsuse requires de-
18. See SUZANNE J.KESSLER, LESSONS FROM THE INTERSEXED 135n.4(1998) (noting esti-
matethatthe"frequency ofintersexuality
maybe as highas 2 percentoflivebirths").
19. See id. at5 (arguingthatthepopularfascination
withintersexed individuals
maystemin
partfrom thefactthatone'sheterosexual orhomosexual statusis notcalledintoquestion
byattrac-
tiontoan intersexed person).
20. See, e.g.,MARTINS. WEINBERG,COLIN J. WILLIAMS& DOUGLASW. PRYOR,DUAL
ATTRACTION: UNDERSTANDING BIXSEXUALITY 4 (1994) (defining bisexuality to sex
according
ratherthangender).
21. See Biddy Martin,SexualitiesWithout Gendersand OtherQueer Utopias,24.2-3
DIACRITICS104, 104 (1994).
23. Thereis a notableamountofpornography thatdepictsintersexed
individuals,
leadingone
tobelievethatsomeconsumers maybe particularly
attractedtotheintersexed.
See KESSLER,supra
note18,at 160n.82("Theattractiontointersexedbodiesis farmorecommon thanwhatwouldbe
revealedincounting partners
oftheintersexed,
as is evidentintheabundantpornography available
featuringactorswithvaginasandstandard-sized
penises....").

fense.24Thedefense is purelypragmatic-bisexuals aresimplynotcurrently

understood as peoplewhoareattracted tobothgenders, as opposedtosexes.
Whilenotattempted here,however, thatextension shouldbe theorized.This
is becauseit is clearlytruethatpeoplehavegender as wellas
orientations
sexualorientations-one canbe attractednotto all men,butonlyto butch
men,ornottoall women, butonlytofemme women.Whyarecertain peo-
pleattracted tobothkindsofgender performance within onesex,whileoth-
erslimitthemselves topeoplewhoperform theirgender onlyin oneway?
Theansweris doubtless linkedtothewaysin whichtheyperceive andap-
preciate"biological" sex. Indeed,itis thestrength ofthislinkthathasled
theorists
likeJudith Butlertopositthatthereis no pre-discursive biological
substrateofsexthatcanbe distinguished from gender.25 Be thatas itmay,
thisarticleleavestheworkoftheorizing thegender orientatation-bi-
oroth-
erwise-for another day.
Thatsaid,I cannowassailthequestion ofwhybisexualsareinvisible
and/or erasedin contemporary American culture.In PartI, I demonstrate
thatbisexuality is invisiblerelative
tohomosexuality andthatthisinvisibility
is better
explained bybisexualerasure thanbybisexual nonexistence. After
defining bisexualinvisibility, I showthatbisexuals(underanyplausible
definitionofbisexuality) aremuchlesssociallyandpolitically visiblethan
homosexuals.I acknowledge, however, thatthisdiscrepancy in visibility
doesnotnecessarily betoken bisexualerasure, as itcouldsimply meanthat
therearefewer bisexuals thanhomosexuals inthepopulation. Becausede-
termining themerit ofthispositionrequires a moreprecisedefinition of"bi-
sexuality,"I generate anddefend a provisional definition ofbisexualityas
theability to feelmorethanincidental sexualdesireforbothsexes. Using
thisdefinition,I lookatwhatthemajorsexuality studies sayabouttheinci-
denceofbisexuality andhomosexuality in thepopulation. Two things are
surprisingaboutsuchan investigation. First, tomyknowledge, no onehas
previously madesucha systematic comparison. Second,whensuchan in-
vestigation
is actuallymade,itrevealsthateach ofthemajorsexualitystud-
ies demonstratesthatthenumberofbisexualsis greaterthanor comparable
tothenumber ofhomosexuals. Thissuggests thatbisexualinvisibility
is not
a reflection
ofthefactthattherearefewer bisexualsthantherearehomo-
sexualsinthepopulation,
butis rather
a product ofsocialerasure.
Havingdemonstrated erasureinPartI, I seekto explainitin PartII. I
suggestthaterasureoccursbecausethetwo dominant sexualorientation
groups-self-identified
straights
and self-identified
gays-havesharedin-
24. See, e.g., JUDITHBUTLER, GENDER TROUBLE: FEMINISMAND THE SUBVERSIONOF

IDENTITY7 (1990) (describing
theclaim,central
toherwork,that"thisconstruct
called'sex' is as
culturally
constructed
as gender;indeed,perhapsit was alwaysalreadygender,
withtheconse-
quencethatthedistinction
between sexandgenderturnsouttobe nodistinction
atall").
25. See id.

vestments in thaterasure.It is as ifthesetwogroups, despitetheirother

virulentdisagreements, haveagreedthatbisexuals willbe madeinvisible.I
callthistheepistemic contract ofbisexualerasure.To support theexistence
ofsucha contract, I adduceevidence thatself-identifiedstraights andself-
identified gaysbothdeploythesamethreestrategies of bisexualerasure:
classerasure, individual erasure, anddelegitimation.
In PartIII, I describe theinvestments thatbothself-identified straights
andself-identified gayshaveinbisexualerasure.Theseare: (1) an interest
instabilizing sexualorientation; (2) aninterestinretaining sexas a dominant
metric ofdifferentiation; and(3) an interest in defending normsofmonog-
amy.I disaggregate eachinterest intoitsthree components: (1) thecompo-
nentsharedby bothstraights and gays;(2) thecomponent heldonlyby
and(3) thecomponent
straights; heldonlybygays.
Thefirst investment monosexuals haveinbisexualerasure is an interest
in stabilizing sexualorientation. Thecomponent ofthatinterest sharedby
bothstraights andgaysis an interest inknowing one'splaceinthesocialor-
der:bothstraights andgaysvaluethisknowledge becauseitrelieves themof
theanxiety ofidentity interrogation. Straightshavea morespecific interest
inensuring thestability ofheterosexuality becausethatidentity is privileged.
Lessintuitively, gaysalsohavea specific interest inguarding thestability of
homosexuality, insofar as theyviewthatstability as thepredicate forthe
"immutability defense" or foreffective political mobilization. Bisexuality
threatens all oftheseinterests becauseitprecludes bothstraights andgays
from "proving" thattheyareeither straightorgay. Thisis becausestraights
(forexample)canonlyprovethattheyarestraight byadducing evidence of
cross-sex desire.(Theycannot adduceevidence oftheabsenceofsame-sex
desire,as itis impossible toprovea negative.)Butthismeansthatstraights
canneverdefinitively provethattheyarestraight ina worldinwhichbisexu-
als exist,as theindividual whoadducescross-sex desirecouldbe either
straightorbisexual, andthere is nodefinitive waytoarbitrate between those
twopossibilities. Bisexuality is thusthreatening toall monosexuals because
itmakesitimpossible toprovea monosexual identity.
Thesecondinterest monosexuals haveinbisexualerasure is an interest
in retaining the importance of sex as a distinguishing traitin society.
Straightsandgayshavea shared investment inthisbecausetobe straight or
tobe gayis to discriminate erotically onthebasisofsex. Straights havea
specificinterest inpreserving theimportance ofsexbecausesexnormsare
currentlyreadthrough a heterosexual matrix:to be a manor a womanin
contemporary
Americansocietyis in partdefinedby one's sexualattractive-
nesstotheopposite sex. Gaysalsohavea particular interest
in sexdistinc-
tions,as homosexualityis oftenviewedas a waytoengageincomplete sex
is, as a meansofcreating
separatism-that single-sex
communities thatare
bondedtogethererotically as wellas sociallyandpolitically.Bisexuality

endangers all oftheseinterests becauseitpositsa worldinwhichsexneed

not(orshould not)matter as muchas monosexuals wantittomatter. Indeed,
bisexualsandasexualsaretheonlysexualorientation groupsthathaveat
leastthecapacity nottodiscriminate onthebasisofsexinanyaspectoftheir
lives.
Thefinalinterest thatmonosexuals haveinbisexualerasure is aninterest
indefending norms ofmonogamy. Bothstraights andgayssharethisinter-
est,as thedominant ethicofcontemporary American societyfavors dyadic
relationships. mayhavea particular
Straights interestinthisinsofar as the
form ofnonmonogamy associated withbisexuals hasbeenconnected toHIV
infection,withbisexual"promiscuity" actingas a bridge(phantasmaticallyif
notactually) between the"infected" gaypopulation andthe"uninfected"
straightpopulation. Gaysmayhavea particular inmonogamy
interest inso-
faras theyseektoassimilate into"mainstream" society.Bisexuality threat-
ensall oftheseinterests becausebisexuals areoften perceived tobe "intrin-
sically"nonmonogamous.
Thus,alongat leastthreedifferent axes,bothgaysandstraights have
distinctbutoverlapping interests thatarethreatened by theconceptofbi-
sexuality. Itis thusunsurprising thatbothofthesesexualorientation groups
colludeinbisexual erasure.
InPartIV,I examine howself-identifiedbisexuals bothcapitulate toand
resisttheepistemic contract. I first
showhowthecontract retards thedegree
to whichindividuals can articulatea bisexualidentity. I thenturnto the
waysin whichindividuals suchan identity
articulating havebegunto dis-
solvethecontract. I hypothesize thatthisvisibility
willonlyincrease over
time,andI endorse thistrend.
InPartV, I lookathowbisexual andvisibility
invisibility affectpractical
outcomes inthelegalrealm.Taking thecaseofsame-sex sexualharassment,
I notethatbisexualshaveremained largelyinvisiblein thatjurisprudence,
although theyaremorevisibleinthisdoctrinal areathaninothers.I thenask
how thatjurisprudence mightbe transformed if bisexualswererendered
morevisible.
I. THE ERASUREOF BISEXUALS
Thatbisexualsarebeingerasedwillappearself-evident to many.Yet
numerous I havehadonthesubject
conversations ofbisexualityhavecalled
intoquestionthenature
oftheproposition(e.g.,underwhatdefinition ofbi-
is erasure
sexuality ifnotitsveracity
occurring?), (e.g.,undera particular
arebisexuals
definition, reallybeingerased?).Answering thesequestions
is
notonlytoassuagethedoubts
useful, ofskeptics, butalsotoensure thatnon-
aretalking
skeptics aboutthesamething whentheyagreethatbisexuals are
beingerased.I therefore
treat
bisexualerasureas a controversial
proposition

thatmustbe proven rather

thanassumed.Thatproposition consists
oftwo
claims:first,
thatbisexualsareinvisible;
second,thatthisinvisibility
stems
notfrom butrather
nonexistence, from erasure.
A. BisexualInvisibility
To showthatbisexuals areinvisible,
I mustspecify anddefenda defini-
tionofbisexualinvisibility
(as opposedtoa definitionofbisexuality),26
and
thenproduceevidencethatbisexualsareinvisible underthisdefinition.
De-
fining
bisexualinvisibility
is somewhat as bisexuality
difficult, existsat the
intersection
ofmanydifferent kindsofsocialinvisibility.Evenwhennar-
rowlydefined,
however, bisexual is easytoprove.
invisibility
1. Bisexualinvisibility
defined.
Thereareatleastthreecausesofbisexualinvisibility,
anditwillbe use-
fulto speakofeachas creating a different
kindofinvisibility.27
Thethree
invisibilities
can be seen as nestedwithineach other: thefirstaffects
straights,
gaysandbisexuals;thesecondaffects onlygaysandbisexuals;
and
thethird affects
onlybisexuals.Inthisarticle,
I focusonthelastkindofin-
visibility.
Thefirstkindofinvisibilityarisesfroma generalurgetokeepall sex-
ualitiesinvisible,
whichleadsto theinvisibility notonlyofbisexuals,but
also of homosexuals,andevenof heterosexuals. As DavidHalperin has
noted,sexualitydiscourse
hasalwaysbeenhaunted by"theancient andper-
sistent
specterofsexualdespecification."28
Despiterecentefforts
todemys-
26. Itmayseemstrange thatI define"bisexual before

invisibility" defining "bisexuality."See
notes71-109infraandaccompanying text.Theorderarisesfrom thefactthatI believethatbisexu-
als areinvisible underanydefinition ofbisexuality, suchthatI neednotspecifythedefinition of
bisexuality indemonstrating bisexualinvisibility.
27. In contrast tothewayI haveusedthewordsinprevious work,"invisibility"
and"visibil-
ity"in thisarticlerefer to socialratherthancorporeal (in)visibility.
See KenjiYoshino,Assimila-
tionistBias in Equal Protection: The VisibilityPresumption and theCase of "Don'tAsk,Don't
Tell,"108YALE L.J.485,497-98& n.44(1998)(usingtheword"invisibility" throughout torefer
to
"corporeal invisibility").Corporeal visibility
refersto"theperceptibilityoftraits suchas skincolor
thatmanifest themselves onthephysical bodyina relatively permanent andrecognizable way." Id.
at497. Socialvisibility, incontrast,"designatestheperceptibilityofnonphysical traits."Id. Social
visibility
includes"'declarative visibility,'
whichariseswhena corporeally invisibletraitis made
visiblethrough speech,"id.at497 n.44;"[p]olitical visibility,
[which]'ariseswhena personclaims
groupmembership as a centraland constitutive feature of heridentity,"' id. (quotingKathryn
Abrams, TheSupreme Court,Visibility,
andthe"Politics ofPresence,"50 VAND.L. REv.411,414
(1997));and"programmatic visibility,"
which"'arisesfrom groupmembers' effortstoconnect their
group-based identitieswitha particularpoliticalinterestorprogram,"' id. (quoting Abrams, supra,
at414). Forthemostpart,theterm"visibility" inthisarticle willrefertothesubsetofsocialvisi-
bilitythatis political
visibility.
28. DAVID M. HALPERIN, SAINT FOUCAULT: TOWARDS A GAY HAGIOGRAPHY 65 (1995).

tifysex,"theeroticstillarousesacutemoralanxiety andconfusion."29Thus
itis stilltruethat,
as RichardPosnerhasnoted, "[a]nyoneinoursociety who
wantstowrite aboutsex... hadbetter whatthesourceofhisinterest
explain
inthesubjectis."30 In thelaw,squeamishness aboutsexualitycauseseven
heterosexual sexualsubjectstobe shrouded in euphemism. Forinstance,a
number ofstatestatutes criminalizing
sodomy denote heterosexual
as wellas
homosexual sodomy nomorespecificallythanas a "crimeagainst nature."31
As onelegalencyclopedia putsit,thetermsofthesestatutes"reflect
theleg-
islators'reluctancetosetoutindetailtheelements ofsodomy becauseofits
loathsome nature."32Thatthesechronically vagueprovisions33 havebeen
upheldagainstvoid-for-vagueness challenges34suggeststhatthejudiciary
sharesthe legislative squeamishness aboutsexuality.Judicialreticence
aboutnaming deviantheterosexualsexualpracticescanalso be seeninthe
contexts ofobscenity andsexualharassment.36
regulation35
29. JEFFREYWEEKS, SEXUALITY1 (1986); see also JEFFREYWEEKS, SEXUALITYAND ITS

DISCONTENTS:MEANINGS,MYTHS & MODERNSEXUALITIES44 (1985) ("Sexuality is a fertile
sourceofmoralpanic,arousing intimate questionsaboutpersonal identity,andtouching on crucial
socialboundaries....Thisis whatmakessexa particular siteofethicalandpoliticalconcern-and
offearandloathing.").
30. RICHARDA. POSNER,SEX ANDREASON1 (1992).
31. See, e.g.,ARIz.REV.STAT.? 13-1411(1999) ("A personwhoknowingly andwithout
forcecommitstheinfamous crimeagainstnaturewithan adultis guiltyof a class 3 misde-
meanor.");IDAHOCODE ? 18-6605(1999) ("Everypersonwhois guiltyof theinfamous crime
againstnature, committedwithmankind orwithanyanimal,is punishable byimprisonment in the
stateprisonnotlessthanfiveyears.");MASS.GEN.LAWSANN.ch.272,? 34 (West1992)("Who-
evercommits theabominable anddetestable crimeagainstnature, eitherwithmankind or witha
beast,shallbe punished by imprisonment in thestateprisonfornotmorethantwenty years.");
MICH.COMP.LAWSANN.? 750.158(West1999)("Anypersonwhoshallcommit theabominable
and detestable crimeagainstnatureeitherwithmankind or withanyanimalshallbe guiltyof a
felony...."); MISS.CODEANN.? 97-29-59(1998) ("Everypersonwhoshallbe convicted ofthe
detestable andabominable crimeagainstnature committed withmankind or witha beast,shallbe
punished byimprisonment in thepenitentiary fora termofnotmorethantenyears.");N.C. GEN.
STAT.? 14-177(1999) ("If anypersonshallcommit thecrimeagainstnature, withmankind or
beast,he shallbe punished as a Class I felon.");OKLA.STAT.ANN.tit.21, ? 886 (West1999)
("Anypersonwhois guilty ofthedetestable andabominable crimeagainstnature, committed with
mankind orwitha beast,shallbe guilty ofa felony.").Unlikeother"crimeagainstnature" statutes,
noneoftheabovestatutes goesontodefine whatconstitutesa "crimeagainstnature."
32. 70AAM.JUR. 2D Sodomy ? 3 (1987)(authoredbyLonnieE. Griffith, Jr.).
33. For a discussionof thevaguenessof thesestatutes, see RUTHANN ROBSON,LESBIAN
(OUT)LAw:SURVIVAL UNDERTHERULEOFLAW47-57(1992).
34. See, e.g.,Rose v. Locke,423 U.S. 48 (1975) (percuriam)(upholding Tennessee"crime
againstnature" statute
againstvagueness challenge);Wainwright v. Stone,414 U.S. 21 (1973) (per
curiam)(sameforFloridastatute); Hoganv. State,441 P.2d 620 (Nev. 1968) (sameforNevada
statute);Wamerv. State,489 P.2d526(Okla.Crim.App.1971)(sameforOklahoma statute).
35. See A BookNamed"John Cleland'sMemoirs ofa WomanofPleasure"v. Massachusetts,
383 U.S. 413,441 (1966) (Clark,J.,dissenting) (notingthat"quotations fromtypicalepisodes[of
an allegedlyobscenebook]wouldso debaseourReports thatI willnotfollowthatcourse").
36. See Oncalev. Sundowner Offshore Servs.,Inc.,523 U.S. 75,77 (1998) (omittinggraphic
factsinsexualharassment caseinthe"interest ofbothbrevity anddignity").

Thesecondkindofinvisibilityrelates tosame-sex
specifically desire.It
can be seenin thetreatmentof same-sex desireas unspeakable.As Eve
Sedgwick notes,thenonmedical termsforsame-sex desirein theChristian
tradition
included"'thatsinwhichshouldbe neithernamednorcommitted,'
the'detestable
andabominable sin,amongst Christiansnotto be named,'
...'things fearfulto name,' . . . [and] 'the love thatdare not speak its
name.... "'37 In thelaw,thecodeofsilenceaboutsame-sex desirecanbe
seenin so-called"nopromohomo"statutes,38 whichprohibit publiceduca-
tionlikelytopromote homosexuality.39It canalsobe seeninthemilitary's
current"don'task,don'ttell"policy,inwhicharticulations ofsame-sex de-
sirearechilled.40 Unlikethefirst
kindofinvisibility,thisinvisibility does
notpertain tocross-sexdesire.Thus,heterosexualitymaybe promoted un-
derthe"nopromohomo"statutes,41 andarticulated under"don'task,don't
tell."42In bothcases,however, bisexualsaremadeas invisible as homo-
sexuals.Thisis because"unspeakable" same-sex desireis alsoa component
ofbisexuality. Despitetheir
name,the"nopromohomo"statutes alsopro-
hibitthepromotion ofbisexuality,
eitherbyexplicitlyencompassing bisexu-
37. SEDGWICK, supranote4, at202-03(footnotes omitted).

38. See, e.g.,Nan D. Hunter, Identity, Speech,andEquality, 79 VA. L. REv. 1695,1702-06
(1993)(describing thegenesisofthesestatutes).
39. See,e.g.,ARIZ.REV.STAT.? 15-716(c)(1998)("No district shallincludeinitscourseof
studyinstruction which:(1) Promotes a homosexual life-style.(2) Portrays homosexuality as a
positivealternative life-style. (3) Suggests thatsomemethods ofsexaresafemethods ofhomosex-
ual sex."); CONN.GEN.STATE.? 46a-81r(1997) ("Nothing in [theenumerated sections]shallbe
deemedor construed ... to authorize thepromotion ofhomosexuality or bisexualityin education
institutions...."); LA. REv. STAT.ANN.?17-281(A)(3)(West1999) ("No sex education course
offeredinthepublicschoolsofthestateshallutilizeanysexuallyexplicit materialsdepictingmale
orfemalehomosexual activity.");MiNN.STAT.? 363.021(1999)("Nothing in thischaptershallbe
construed to ... authorize or permit thepromotion of homosexuality or bisexuality in education
institutionsor requiretheteaching in education institutionsofhomosexuality or bisexuality
as an
acceptable lifestyle . . . ); TEX.HEALTH & SAFETYCODEANN.? 85.007(b)(West1992)("The
materialsin theeducation programs intended forpersonsyounger than18 yearsof age must...
statethathomosexual conduct is notanacceptable lifestyle. . .").
40. See 10 U.S.C. ? 654(b)(2)(1998)(noting that, in theabsenceoffurther findings,
a mem-
berstating "thathe or sheis a homosexual orbisexual"willbe separated fromthearmedforces).
BecauseI alluderepeatedly tothepolicyinthisarticle, I brieflydescribe ithere.Thepolicyimme-
diatelypredating "don'task,don'ttell"contained a categorical exclusionof homosexuals, noting
that"[h]omosexuality [was]incompatible withmilitary service."32 C.F.R.pt.41 app. A (1998)
("EnlistedAdministrative Separations: StandardsandProcedures"). After winning his first
presi-
dentialelection, thenPresident-elect Bill Clinton maintained thathe wouldliftthebanon gaysin
themilitary andpermit gaystoserveopenly.See JANETE. HALLEY,DON'T:A READ-ER'S GUIDE
TO THEMILITARY'SANTI-GAY POLICY20 (1999). Thisengendered massiveresistance on thepart
ofthemilitary establishment. See id. at21. Thecurrent policy,colloquiallyknownas "don'task,
don'ttell,"was framed as a compromise. See WilliamN. Eskridge, Jr.& PhilipP. Frickey, The
SupremeCourt,1993 Term-Foreword: Law as Equilibrium, 108 HARV.L. REv. 27, 92 (1994).
Underthispolicy,gayscan servein themilitary, buttheymaynotserveopenlywithout risking
separation. See 10U.S.C. ? 654(b)(2)(1998).
41. See note39 supra.

alitywithin their interdictions

orbyprohibiting homosexual acts.43Andthe
"don'task,don'ttell"policyexplicitly muzzlesbisexualsas wellas homo-
sexuals-the"statements" portion ofthestatute assertsthatthepresumption
ofhomosexual conduct is triggeredif"themember hasstated thathe orshe
is a homosexual orbisexual."44
The finalkindofinvisibility pertains onlyto bisexuality. Bisexualin-
visibilitymanifests itself
inthestudied omission ofbisexuality indiscussions
ofsexualorientation. Oneexample amongmany45 is ananthology ofessays
on sexualorientation entitledHomosexuality/Heterosexuality.46 Thiselision
carries overintothelaw,wherediscussions ofsexualorientation almostin-
variably privilege thestraight/gaybinary.Oneexample amongmany47 is the
recentSupreme Courtopinion inRomerv.Evans.48In thatcase,theCourt
found thatAmendment 2 ofColorado's stateconstitutionviolatedthefederal
EqualProtection Clause.Amendment 2 stated thatthere wouldbe "No Pro-
tected StatusBasedonHomosexual, LesbianorBisexualOrientation."49 The
Amendment thustooktheclassofbisexuals seriously,probably becausethe
municipal ordinances itoverrode explicitly protected bisexuals.50TheCourt,
however, subsumed bisexualsintothehomosexual category, noting thatit
wouldrefer tothe"named class"protected bytheordinances "ashomosexual
persons orgaysandlesbians."51 Thus,theonlyreferences tobisexuals inthe
opinionoccurin thequotedlanguage oftheordinances andAmendment 2;
whentheCourtspeaksforitself, it speakssolelyabouthomosexual per-
sons.52
BecauseI wishtoconsider howbisexuals quabisexuals arebeingerased,
I focusonthethird kindofinvisibility. Thus,bisexualinvisibility is defined
forthepurposes ofthisarticle as thatsocialinvisibility thataffects onlybi-
sexuals.In order todetermine howsignificant thatinvisibility
is,I mustiso-
lateitseffects from theeffects oftheotherkindsofinvisibility. I can ac-
complish thisisolationbycomparing therelativevisibilityofbisexuality and

44. 10U.S.C. ? 654(b)(2)(1998)(emphasis
added).
45. Forotherexamples, seenotes54-70infra
andaccompanying
text.
46. HOMOSEXUALITY/HETEROSEXUALITY: CONCEPTS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION (David P.
McWhirter,Stephanie A. Sanders& JuneMachover Reinischeds.,1990).
47. Forotherexamples, see textaccompanyingnotes503-534infra.
48. 517U.S. 620 (1996).
49. Id. at624 (quotingCOLO. CONST.,art.II ? 306 (1992)).
50. See id. (citingDEN. REV. MUN. CODE, art.IV, ?? 28-91to 28-116(1991); ASPENMUN.
CODE ? 13-98(1977);BOULDERREV. CODE ?? 12-1-1to 12-1-11(1987)).
51. Id.
52. Thisdoesnotindicate thattheCourtwas intendingto excludebisexualsfromitsprotec-
tions,butrather
thattheCourtpermitted thehomosexual category to absorbbisexuals. Yet this
absorption,
ofcourse,is itself
an exampleofbisexualinvisibility.

To demonstrate
homosexuality.53 thatbisexualityis invisible
undermydefi-
I mustdemonstrate
nition, thatbisexuality
is lesssociallyvisiblethanhomo-
sexuality.
2. Evidenceofbisexualinvisibility.
Sucha demonstration is easilymade. On-linesearchesforthewords

"homosexuality" and"bisexuality" inmainstream newspapers,newsmagazi-
nes,andacademic abstracts
reveala strikingdiscrepancy intheincidence of
thetwoterms.In theperiodfrom January 1, 1990toNovember 30, 1999,
theLosAngelesTimes had2790documents mentioning "homosexuality"and
121documents mentioning USA Todayhad1768documents
"bisexuality";54
mentioning "homosexuality" and twenty-nine documents mentioning "bi-
sexuality";55 and The WallStreetJournal had 396 documents mentioning
"homosexuality" andninedocuments mentioning "bisexuality."56In the
sametimeperiod,Timemagazine had240 documents mentioning "homo-
sexuality" andfifteendocuments mentioning "bisexuality";57
US. Newsand
WorldReporthad 120 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and three
documents mentioning "bisexuality";58and The New Republichad 144
documents mentioning "homosexuality" and threedocuments mentioning
"bisexuality."59 WhileI expected muchless of a discrepancy in moving
frompopularto academicsources, thisprovednotto be thecase. In the
sametimeperiod, theSocialSciencesAbstract DatabaseonWilsonWebhad
1122documents mentioning "homosexuality" andeighty-seven documents
mentioning "bisexuality";60
theGeneralSciencesAbstracts had221 docu-
ments mentioning "homosexuality" andsixdocuments mentioning "bisexu-
the
ality";;61 Humanities Abstracts had 962 documents mentioning "homo-
sexuality" andtwenty-sixdocuments mentioning "bisexuality."62
Thediscrepancy between therelativevisibility
ofhomosexuality andbi-
sexuality canbe describedsociologicallyas wellas statistically.
RobinOchs
53. A comparisonofbisexuality
andheterosexuality
wouldnotisolatethiskindofinvisibility
becausebisexualitycouldbe moreinvisible
thanheterosexuality
due to thesecondkindof invisi-
bility.
54. SearchofWESTLAW,ALLNEWSLibrary, LAT File(Mar.22, 1999).
55. SearchofWESTLAW,ALLNEWSLibrary, USATD File(Mar.22, 1999).
56. SearchofWESTLAW,ALLNEWSLibrary, WSJFile(Mar.22, 1999).
57. SearchofWESTLAW,ALLNEWSLibrary, TIMEMAGFile(Mar.22, 1999).
58. SearchofWESTLAW,ALLNEWSLibrary, USNWRFile(Mar.22, 1999).
59. SearchofWESTLAW,ALLNEWSLibrary, NEWREPUBFile(Mar.22, 1999).
60. Searchof GeneralScienceAbstractsDatabase,WilsonWeb (Mar. 18, 1999) <http://
wilsonweb2.hwwilson.com/cgi-bin/auto
login.cgi>.
61. Searchof GeneralScienceAbstractsDatabase,WilsonWeb (Mar. 18, 1999) <http://
wilsonweb2.hwwilson.com/cgi-bin/auto
login.cgi>.
62. Search of HumanitiesAbstractsDatabase,Wilson Web (Mar. 18, 1999) <http://
wilsonweb2.hwwilson.com/cgi-binlauto-login.cgi>.

hasarguedthatbisexuals areinvisiblenotonlyrelative tostraights,

butalso
relativetogays.63Shepointsoutthatwhilewe sometimes suspend thegen-
eralpresumption thatall individualsare straight, thepresumption thatre-
placesitis thatall individualswithinthatcontext aregay.64Thus,"[i]nmost
families, forexample, members arepresumed tobe heterosexual; conversely,
ata women's barall thewomen presentarepresumed lesbians."65Thereare
fewcontexts, however, in whichan individual is presumed bisexual.In a
similarvein,Marjorie Garber hasobserved thatbisexuals havefewrecogniz-
able symbols oftheiridentity66-the pinkandblue"biangle"is oneofthe
fewsymbols specificallydenoting bisexuality67andis muchless culturally
visiblethanthegaysymbols68 ofthepinktriangle69 ortherainbow.70 Thus,
evenwhentheheterosexual presumption thatall individuals arestraightis
suspended, itis replacedbythemonosexual presumption thatall individuals
arestraight orgay.
Itis understandablethattheheterosexual presumption hasreceived more
theoreticalattention thanthemonosexual presumption. Theerosionofthe
presumption thatall individualsareheterosexual wasobviously necessaryto
identifythefallback presumption thatall individuals areheterosexual orho-
mosexual. Theevidence abovedemonstrates, however, thatthemonosexual
presumption ispowerful, andurgently requires suchattention.
I willtherefore takeit to be relativelyuncontroversial thatbisexuals,
howsoever defined, arelesssociallyvisiblethanhomosexuals in contempo-
raryAmerican culture.Whatremains tobe explored is thecauseofthisin-
visibility.
63. See Robin Ochs, Biphobia:It Goes More than Two Ways,in BISExuALITY: THE
PSYCHOLOGYAND POLITICSOF AN INVISIBLEMiNoRITY217, 225 (Beth A. Firesteined., 1996)
[hereinafter
INVISIBLEMINORITY].
64. See id.
65. Id.
66. See GARBER,supranote 11, at 25.
67. See id. (notingthat"lavenderand blue 'biangles' seem to go unrecognized").
68. It is truethatthese "gay" symbolshave been appropriatedformultipleotherpurposes.
See id. ("Pink triangles. . . have been takenover as 'the provinceof everyliberal-leaningClinton
supporter."'). But the inauguralgay meaningsof thesesymbolsstillremainintactand widelyun-
derstood.
69. See, e.g., Gays ReviseNazi Symbol,S.F. CHRON.,June29, 1992, at D5 (notinghighvisi-
bilityof pink trianglesduringGay Pride Month);Deb Price,ConcentrationCamps' Pink Triangle
Recalled at Holocaust Museum,STARTRIB., May 5, 1993, at 3E (notingthat"[t]hepink triangleis
sportedaroundtheworld. . . as a signof gay pride").
70. See, e.g., ThomasJ. Brady,How Some Gays Choose to Show the Colors,PHILA.
INQUIRER,Nov. 19, 1997, at DI (notingrisingpopularityof rainbowas symbolof homosexuality);
Deb Price,Rainbow Flag is Symbol
ofa UnitedGayPeople,STARTRIB.,Apr. 19, 1995, at 4E (de-
scribingutilityof rainbowsymbolin recognizinghomosexuals).

B. BisexualErasure
In discussing
thisproject
withpeers,I wasstruck byhowmanyofthem
agreedthatbisexualswereinvisiblerelative
tohomosexuals withoutbeliev-
ingthatbisexualswerebeingerased.In theirview,thescantvisibility of
bisexualsrelative
tohomosexuals didnotsignify their"erasure,"butrather
accuratelyreflected
theirsmallerrelativenumbers.Call thisthe"relative
nonexistencethesis."Themeritofthisposition dependson thenumbers of
bisexualsandhomosexuals inthepopulation. Thosenumbers inturn depend
on thedefinitionsof"bisexual"
and"homosexual." I thusprovideandde-
fenda provisionaldefinition
of"bisexuality"(and,bydoingso,provide and
defend definitions
of"homosexuality"and"heterosexuality").I thenapply
thisdefinition
toa number ofmajorsexualitystudies
tocompare therelative
incidencesofbisexuality
andhomosexuality.
1. Bisexuality
defined.
I discussthedefinition ofbisexuality withsomecarebecausethevalidity

ofmythesisdepends uponthisdefinition. Whether bisexualinvisibility
de-
notesbisexualerasure turns on howexpansively ornarrowly bisexualityis
defined.To adoptwhatever definition ofbisexualityundergirds theconven-
tionalwisdomthat"' [e]veryone is bisexual,'`71forexample, is to demon-
strate
bisexualerasure atthemoment ofdefinition. Similarly,
toadoptwhat-
everdefinition of bisexuality undergirds thecountervailing conventional
wisdom that"' [t]hereis no suchthing as bisexuality,"'72
is simultaneously
to
demonstratebisexual nonerasure.
Neitherdefinition is particularlysatisfactory.Theuniversalizing defini-
tionof bisexuality maximizes thenumber of personserased,butonlyby
droppingthethreshold ofbisexual ascriptionso lowas arguably toempty the
termof diacriticalforce.73 The eradicating definition
of bisexuality mini-
71. GARBER, supranote11,at 16 (quotingconventional

wisdom);see also PAULA C. RUST,
BISEXUALITY AND THE CHALLENGE TO LESBIAN POLITICS: SEX, LOYALTY, AND REVOLUTION 1
(1995) [hereinafter
RUST, CHALLENGE] (quotingviewthat"[e]veryone
is inherentlybisexual").
72. GARBER, supra note 11, at 16 (quotingconventional wisdom);see also RUST,
CHALLENGE, supranote71,at 1 (quoting viewthatbisexuality "doesnotexist").
73. Thiscan be seenin theintuitive distance betweenthestatement "Everyone is bisexual"
andthestatement "I ambisexual"-that is, in theabilityof individuals to say theformer without
conceding thelatter.Atthelevelofformal logic,thismakesno sense. IfI ampartof"everyone,"
and"everyone is bisexual,"thenI, too,mustbe bisexual.Atthelevelofpraxis,however, itis in-
telligible
becausetheword"bisexual"in thefirst sentenceis seentohavea sufficiently dilutesig-
nificance(preciselybecauseitis spreadso thinly acrossthemassofhumanity) as tohavenoconse-
quence. In thesecondsentence, theword"bisexual"is seento havea sufficiently potentsignifi-
cance(preciselybecauseitrefers tosome,butnotothers, inthehumanpopulation) as tohaveseri-
ous ramifications. Putin Sedgwickian terms, thisis thedifference betweena universalizing dis-
courseofbisexuality (in whichbisexuality is a latenttrait
in all ofus) anda minoritizing discourse
ofbisexuality(in whichbisexuality is a traitthatsome,butnotothers, possess). See SEDGWICK,

mizesthenumber ofpersons erasedbutonlybyraisingthethresholdofdefi-

nitiontodizzyingheights.74 thesetwoendpoints,
Eliminating however,still
leavesa vastspectrumofchoice.
In stakingouta definitional twoissuesmustbe defensibly
position, re-
solved.Thefirst is theaxisoraxesalongwhichsexualorientation willbe
defined.Thesecondis howexpansively ornarrowly to definea particular
sexualorientation
alongthechosenaxisoraxes.
Therearethree axesalongwhichsexualorientationis conventionally
de-
fined:desire,conduct, andself-identification.75
Definitions
canrelyon a
singleaxis,orona combination oftheaxes.76Thenumber ofbisexualswill
varydramaticallyaccordingtothepermutationused. Consider,forexample,
thistaxonomy ofbisexualities
constructedbya studyusinga pureconduct-
baseddefinition:
[1] "DefenseBisexuality" (defendingagainsthomosexuality in societieswhere
itis stigmatized),[2] "LatinBisexuality"
(theinsertiverolein certain"Mediter-
raneancultures" is notregarded as homosexual, so thatmenwhoparticipate in
same-sexencounters mayconsiderthemselves nonethelessheterosexual), [3]
"RitualBisexuality" (as withthe Sambiaof Papua-NewGuinea,in which
younger malesfellate oldermeninordertoingesttheir"masculinizing" semen,
a practicethatis partofa riteofinitiation,
maycontinue foryears,andis appar-
entlyreplacedby exclusiveheterosexuality aftermarriage), [4] "MarriedBi-
sexuality,"[5] "Secondary Homosexuality" (morefrequently called"situational
bisexuality"-sex withsame-sex in prisonsorothersingle-sex
partners institu-
tions,inpublicparksortoilets, orformoney),[6] "EqualInterest in Male and
FemalePartners" (so-calledtruebisexuality),[7] "Experimental Bisexuality,"
and[8] "Technical Bisexuality"
(withpartnerswhomaybe dressedas members
oftheothersex,orhavehadsomeformofgenderreassignment: transsexuals
ormembers ofa "third sex"insomecultures).77
supranote4, at 1 (usingtheseterms indiscussing thedefinitions

ofhomosexuality andheterosexu-
ality).
74. Indeed,thereis a way in whichthetwopositionsconvergein theirextremity.Cf
GARBER, supranote11,at 105(noting thatbisexualinvisibility
canbe "produced as a startling
by-
product ofomnipresence"). Forif"everyone is bisexual"thenthedefinitionofbisexuality mustbe
so anemicas to leaveopenthepossibility that"noone is bisexual"in a less anemicsense. Con-
versely,if"nooneis bisexual"thenthedefinition ofbisexualitymustbe so robust as toleaveopen
thepossibility
that"everyone is bisexual"insomelessrobust sense. See Michaeldu Plessis,Bla-
tantlyBisexual;or,Unthinking QueerTheory, inREPRESENTING BISEXUALITIES 19,30 (DonaldE.
Hall & MariaPramaggiore eds.,1996)(noting that"[i]feveryoneis bisexual,'bisexuality'
can no
longerbe a specificorpertinent
feature").
75. See EDWARD 0. LAUMANN, JoHN H. GAGNON, ROBERT T. MICHAEL & STUART
MICHAELS, THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SEXUALITY: SEXUAL PRACTICES IN THE UNITED
STATES 290 (1994) [hereinafter
LAUMANN ET AL.] (notingthat"homosexuality"
can referto
"same-gender behavior,
desire,self-definition,
or identification
or somecombination
of theseele-
ments").
76. See id.
77. GARBER, supranote11,at30 (numbering added).

This arrayappearsso vertiginously diversethatit mightfairly be asked

whether theseindividuals shouldall be characterized
by the same term.78In
actuality,
however, thisarraygivesan oversimplified picture ofbisexuality,
insofaras itonlyusesoneaxisofdefinition.
Forifa different axiswereused,manyoftheindividuals whofallinto
manyoftheabovecategories wouldnotbe characterized as bisexuals,and
viceversa.Thus,ifwereliedondesirealone,no"defense bisexuals"would
be considered giventhattheyonlyprofess
bisexual, cross-sex desiretomiti-
gatethestigma ofpossessingsame-sex desire.79Some"ritual bisexuals"and
"situationalbisexuals"might alsofalloutofthedesire-based category. This
is becausetheseindividuals couldbe engagedin same-sex conduct forrea-
sonsother thansexualdesire(suchas initiation
intoadultstatus inthecaseof
theritualbisexual8O orfinancialremunerationinthecaseofthesituationally
bisexualsexworker8l). Atthesametime,however, we might expectmany
individuals whowouldnotbe characterized as bisexualsundera conduct-
baseddefinition tobe includedundera desire-based definition. Thiswould
encompass allindividuals
whonursed unactedsame-sex desires.
Similarly, ifwedefinedbisexualityaccording toself-identification
alone,
"defensebisexuality" wouldprobably be theonlycategory thatwasnotseri-
ouslydiminished. "Latinbisexuals"engageinsexualconduct withbothmen
andwomenbutself-identify as heterosexual
rather thanas bisexual.82Anda
significant portionof themenwhoengagein extramarital same-sexcon-
duct,83or whoviewtheirsame-sexconductas "experimental"84 or "situ-
ational,"85
arelikely toself-identify
as straight.
Becausethepopulations captured bythedifferent axesareso different,
thechoiceofaxis(orcombination ofaxes)is crucial.Thechoicecannot be
madeacontextually, butwilldependonthepurpose forwhichthedefinition
is used.Forexample, thestudy thatgeneratedthetaxonomy describedabove
useda conduct-based definition
becauseitspurpose wastoexamine therole
78. Cf id. at 31 (speculatingabouttheusefulnessof usingthesingleterm"bisexuality"to de-

scribea similarlydiversearrayof activitiesand fantasies).
79. See RonaldC. Fox,Bisexuality
in Perspective:
A Reviewof Theoryand Research,in
INVISIBLEMINoRITY,supra note63, at 3, 22-23.
80. See id. at 23.
81. See FRITZKLEIN,THE BISEXUALOPTION19 (1978) ("Male prostitutes who allow them-
selves to be fellatedformoneyoftendo notconsiderthisa homosexualact, or considerthemselves
bisexual.").
82. See Fox, supra note79, at 23.
83. See John
J.Brownfain,
A Study
oftheMarriedBisexualMale:ParadoxandResolution,
in
BISEXUALITIES:THEORYAND RESEARCH173, 173 (Fritz Klein & TimothyJ. Wolf eds., 1985)
(notingevidencethat"individualswho choose to live withina conventionalmarriagewhile simul-
taneouslyhavingsignificantlove-sex relationswithmembersof theirown sex .... are not rare,
onlyrarelyidentified").
84. See KLEIN,supra note81, at 18.
85. Seeid.

of bisexualityin the transmission of the HumanImmunodeficiency Virus

("HIV").86 This definition makes obvious sense because HIV is spread
throughsexual conductratherthanthroughdesireor self-identification.87
However,neither thisnoranyotheraxis ofdefinition willbe validacrossall
contexts.
So whichaxis or combination of axes is bestsuitedforourpurposes?I
believe thatthe answeris a puredesire-baseddefinition.This may seem
self-serving as thedesire-based definition is likelyto yieldmorebisexuals
thana conduct-based orself-identification-based definition,88therebymaking
theclaimoferasureeasierto sustain.
But the purelydesire-baseddefinition of bisexualitycan be defended
againstthiscriticism.One can framethatdefenseby (1) askingwho is bi-
sexual undera desire-baseddefinition who wouldnotbe bisexualundera
conduct-basedor self-identification-based definition, and then(2) asking
whether it is fairto call thoseindividualsbisexualforthepurposesof deter-
miningerasure.The analogyto homosexuality is useful. For whenwe ask
thosequestionsabouthomosexuality, theanswersare thatthedesire-based
definition includesthosewho have unactedsame-sexdesiresand thatit is
clearlydefensible to call thoseindividualshomosexual.I assumethatthese
individualsdo notact outtheirdesiresthrough conductor self-identification
because of the stigmaof homosexuality, and I assumethatthe inabilityto
convertdesireto conductor self-identification is consequential to thatindi-
vidual(at leastinsofaras thedesireis morethanincidental).89 I wouldcall
theindividualwhopossessesunexpressed same-sexdesirea closetedhomo-
sexual ratherthana heterosexual.Indeed,I would view the exclusionof
such individualsfromthe definition of homosexualsforthe purposesof
demonstrating erasureto be ironic,as itwouldpermiterasureto controlthat
definition,to leterasureeraseitself.AndI wouldnotexpectmuchresistance
to theseanalyticmoves.
I believethatthesemoveswillbe muchmorestrongly resistedwhenap-
plied to bisexuality, butthattheyare nonetheless valid. The desire-based
definition willincludeindividuals whodesirebothsexesbutwho do notex-
pressthatdual desireeitherthrough conductor through speech. The resis-
tanceariseswhenthissuppression is characterized as consequential.It is
harderto arguethatbisexualsare givingup an important aspect of their
86. See GARBER, supranote11,at30.

87. See Joseph P. Stokes,KittiwutTaywaditep,PeterVanable& DanielJ.McKirnan, Bisex-
ualMen,SexualBehavior, andHIV/AIDS, inINVISIBLEMINORITY,supranote63,at 149,150-51.
88. See,e.g.,COLKER,HYBRID,supranote9, at 15 (noting that"[o]nlyabout1 percentofthe
adultpopulation identifies
as bisexual,"butthat"nearly
4 percentacknowledge thattheyare at-
tractedtopeopleofbothsexes")(citingTripGabriel, A NewGeneration SeemsReadyto GiveBi-
sexuality
a Place intheSpectrum, N.Y. TIMES,June12,1995,atCIO).
89. I discusstherestrictionthatthedesirebe morethanincidentalbelow. See notes99-108
infraandaccompanying text.

identitysincetheyarenotbeingdeniedall satisfactory interpersonalsexual

expression (as a homosexual in thesameposition arguably is) butmerely
sexualexpression withone sex.90In fact,thestereotype of bisexualsas
"greedy" or "promiscuous" impliesthatbisexualsareaskingformorethan
theirdue,suchthattheyshouldbe forced to giveup sexualexpression with
one of thetwo sexes.91Yet forthepurposesof erasure, theinquiry is
whether theyare forgoing something rather
thanwhether theyshouldbe for-
goingit. Andtheanswer tothatpositive, rather thannormative, question is
clearlyaffirmative.To theextent thatbisexuals arenotpermitted toexpress
theirdualdesires, theymight fairly characterize themselvesas harmed.To
excludetheindividual whohasunexpressed dualdesiresagainpermits era-
suretoeraseitself.Forthatreason, I believethata purelydesire-based defi-
nitionofbisexualityis themostappropriate.
Evenafterdesireis justified as thepertinent axis,we mustdetermine
howexpansively or narrowly to definebisexualsbasedon desire.At one
extreme, thereis Freud'sviewthatbisexualdesireis a universal condi-
tion92-perhaps themostprestigious version ofthe"everyone is bisexual"
position.Attheotherextreme is theviewthatonly"true"orsex-blind bi-
sexuals-thosewhohaveequaldesireformenandwomen93-are bisexual,
whichasymptotically approaches theviewthat"nooneis bisexual"depend-
ingonhowseriously onetakestherequirement ofequality.94
Isolatingdesire
as theaxisofdefinition thusstillleavesthefullspectrum ofbisexualdefini-
tion-from bisexualuniversalitytobisexual nonexistence-available.
90. See Arthur A. Murphy & JohnP. Ellington,Homosexuality and theLaw: Toleranceand
Containment II, 97 DICK. L. REv.693,709-10(1993)(arguing thatexisting sodomylawsshouldbe
modified toexonerate "truehomosexuals" butnotbisexuals, ontheground thatbisexualscanmore
easilymodify their behavior).
91. See notes353-357infraandaccompanying text.
92. See, e.g.,Sigmund Freud,AnalysisTerminable andInterminable, in 23 THE STANDARD
EDITION OF THE COMPLETEPSYCHOLOGICAL WORKS OF SIGMUNDFREUD 211, 243-44(James
Strachey trans., Hogarth Press1973)(1937) [hereinafter WORKSOF SIGMUNDFREUD]("We have
cometo learn,however, thateveryhumanbeingis bisexualin thiscase andthathislibidois dis-
tributed either ina manifest orlatentfashion,
overobjectsofbothsexes.");Sigmund Freud,Civili-
zationandItsDiscontents, in21 WORKSOF SIGMUNDFREUD, supra,at57, 105(1930)("Manis an
animalorganism ... withan unmistakably bisexualdisposition."); SigmundFreud,ThePsycho-
genesisofa Case ofHomosexuality ina Woman, in 18WORKSOF SIGMUNDFREUD, supraat 145,
158 (1920) ("In all of us,throughout life,thelibidonormally oscillatesbetweenmaleandfemale
objects...."); id.at 157(noting "theuniversal
bisexualityofhuman beings").
93. Whatitmeanstohave"equal"desireformenandwomenis of coursea deeplyfraught
question.Perhapsthisis whytruebisexuality is framed as "sex-blind"bisexuality-implying that,
ifbisexualsdo noteven"see"sex,theycannotdisburse theirdesireunequally on thebasisofsex.
But,as discussedbelow,therhetorical formulation of"sex-blindness" is somewhat misleading,as
bisexualscanin facttellthedifference between menandwomen.Andifthebisexualcandifferen-
tiate,itseemsunlikely thatthisdifferentiation
willnotaffect herdesireasymmetrically, giventhe
powerofsexas a diacritical trait
inoursociety.See notes314-318infraandaccompanying text.
94. See RUST,CHALLENGE,supranote71,at48-49(describing thisdefinitionofbisexuality
andnoting itsrestrictiveness).

HereI choosea narrow viewofbisexuality. I do nottakethisposition

becauseI rejecttheviewthatbisexuality is universal-Iremain agnostic as
to thispoint.Rather, I adoptthisposition becauseassuming universalbi-
sexuality wouldmakemyargument tooeasy(andtherefore tooeasytodis-
miss).
I placetworestrictions onmydesire-based definitionofbisexuality.The
firstrestriction
pertains tothenature ofdesire.Desireis a classicfloating
signifier,thatis, a termwithout a clearreferent. Especially in postmodem
times,itsambiguity hasbeenresolved in favorofan expansive definition.
Thus,undera Foucaultian reading, sexualdesireshouldnotbe distinguished
from other pleasurable usesofthebody.95Andundera Sedgwickian read-
ing,desirecanincorporate itsputative opposite,as inthetheory thattheho-
mophobiaof "homosexual panic"is in actuality fueledby an occluded,
guilty,andsurprised desire.96 Butifthedesire-based definitionofbisexual-
ityencompasses thenonsexual pleasure (andsexualdispleasure) we feelin
thecompany ofother menandwomen, weareallindeedbisexuals.
To avoidsucha dilution ofthebisexualdefinition, I restrictthedefini-
tionofdesiretoitsmoreeveryday meaning of"sexualappetite orlust."97I
thustakethecategories ofthe"homosocial" andthe"homosexual" (or,alter-
natively,the"hostile" andthe"desirous") tobe analyticallydistinct.98
Thesecondrestriction pertains tothefrequency withwhichthedesireis
experienced. To be classified as a bisexualunder mydefinition, an individ-
ual's sexualdesireforeachsexmustbemorethanincidental. To understand
thisrestriction,
itis helpful toexamine theanalogous restrictionscommonly
placedonhomosexuality. IfKinseyis tobe believed, inthemiddleofthis
century, a singlesame-sex sexualexperience wassufficienttobrandan indi-
vidualas a homosexual.99 Thatcultural consensus,if it everexisted, has
95. See 1 MICHEL FOUCAULT,THE HISTORYOF SEXUALITY:AN INTRODUCTION157-59

(RobertHurleytrans.,VintageBooks1990)(criticizing
theprivileging ofsexoverothereconomies
of"bodiesandpleasure").
96. See SEDGWICK,supranote4, at 20. Sedgwickcontends that"[j]udicially,
a 'homosexual
panic'defensefora person(typically
a man)accusedofantigay violenceimpliesthathisresponsi-
bilityforthecrimewas diminished bya pathological
psychological condition,perhaps on
brought
byan unwanted sexualadvancefrom themanwhomhe thenattacked."Id. at 19. Sedgwickgoes
on to observethat"thereasonwhythisdefense thenameofthe(formerly
borrows rather
obscure
andlittle-diagnosed)
psychiatric
classification
'homosexual panic'is thatit refers
to thesupposed
uncertaintyabouthisownsexualidentityoftheperpetrator...." Id. at20. Thus,theword"homo-
sexual"in "homosexual panic"is aptlyambiguous,representing boththesame-sexdesirein the
victimandthesame-sexdesirein theperpetrator. Theambiguity representsthetransitivity
(imag-
inedorreal)ofsame-sex desire,
whichcouldbe describedas therealcauseofthepanic.
97. 4 OED, supra note9, at 522.
98. Thatthesedistinctions
aremadein manyquarters, as in thecase of sexualharassment,
willbe demonstratedbelow.See textaccompanying notes430-534infra.
99. In 1948,Kinseystated:
Everywhereinoursocietythere
is a tendencytoconsideranindividual
'homosexual' ifheis
known tohavehada singleexperiencewithanother
individual
ofhisownsex. Under thelaw

shifted foratoonethatholdsthatadventitious
incertain homosexual desire,
evenifmanifested in explicit
same-sex conduct, to stripan
is notsufficient
individual
ofheterosexual status.Thislatter bestseeninthe
viewis perhaps
legalsystem-probably thepreeminent siteinwhichpublicinstitu-
cultural
tionaldeterminationsof sexualorientation made. Congres-
are currently
sionalsupportforthisviewcanbe seenin the"don'task,don'ttell"stat-
ute.'00Thestatutegenerallymakeshomosexual conductgroundsforexclu-
sion fromthemilitary.101Yet it also containsan exemption
through
which
anindividualwhohasengaged insame-sex sexualconductcanremain inthe
militaryifhe candemonstrate thatsuchconduct is unlikely
torecur.102
To
theextent thatwe viewCongress to weedouthomosexuals,
as attempting
thisso-called
"queen-for-a-day"exemptionl03maybe seenas a self-imposed
checkonlabeling individuals
as gaybasedonisolatedsame-sex sexualcon-
duct.Thejudiciary alsousesitsinterpretive torestrict
faculty thedefinition
of"homosexual" inthisway. Judicial exemptions
"queen-for-a-day" canbe
seen in thecontexts of thecivilservice,104 and marriage.106
adoption,105
anindividual mayreceive thesamepenalty fora singlehomosexual experiencethathewould

fora continuousrecord ofexperiences. Inpenalandmental institutions
a maleis likelytobe
rated'homosexual' ifheis discoveredtohavehada singlecontact withanother male.Insoci-
etyatlarge,a malewhohasworked outa highly successful marital
adjustmentis likelytobe
rated'homosexual' ifthecommunity leamsabouta single contact hehashadwithanother
that
male.
KiNSEYET AL.,MALE,supranote5, at647,650.
100. 10U.S.C. ? 654 (1998).
101. The statute assertsthat"[a] member of thearmedforcesshallbe separated fromthe
armedforces"ifitis found"[t]hatthemember hasengagedin,attempted toengagein,orsolicited
another toengageina homosexual actoracts ..." 10U.S.C. ? 654(b)(1)(1998).
102. Evenifa finding is madethata servicemember hasengagedinhomosexual conduct, the
member can evadeseparation ifhe orshecan show,interalia, that"suchconductis a departure
fromthemember's usualandcustomary behavior," 10 U.S.C. ? 654(b)(1)(A)(1998); "suchcon-
duct,underall thecircumstances, is unlikelytorecur," id. ? 654(b)(1)(B);and"themember does
nothavea propensity orintent toengageinhomosexual acts,"id.? 654(b)(1)(E).
103. See HALLEY,supranote40,at39-48.
104. InDew v.Halaby,317 F.2d582,583 (D.C. Cir.1963),forexample, thecourtaccepted
thata veteran wasnothomosexual eventhough hehadhadfourhomosexual encounters as an ado-
lescent.Thecourtquotedthepsychiatric evaluation oftheappellant WilliamDew:
"I decidedlydo notbelieve[Dew]tohavea homosexual personality
disorder.I believethat
theseveralincidents which hegavea history ofhaving engaged inwhileage 18anda fresh-
manincollegewereisolated incidentsprimarilytheresult ofhiscuriosity.I do notfeelthat
isolatedepisodesofhomosexual behaviorcanbe considered abnormal orperverted, butrather
a processofnormal sexualinvestigationandcuriosity. Thereis considerableevidence inthe
psychiatric
literaturethatthisallegation
istrue."
Id. at583n.3(quoting testimony ofpsychiatrist).
105. See In re OpinionoftheJustices, 530 A.2d21, 24 (N.H. 1987)(excluding fromdefini-
tionof homosexual in a proposedadoption statutethosepersonswho,forexample,hadhad one
homosexualexperience duringadolescence, but who thenengagedin exclusively heterosexual
behavior).
106. See Freitagv. Freitag, 242 N.Y.S.2d643,644 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1963)(deciding thatman's
confession ofhomosexual experiences priortomarriage didnotmeanhe had"a truecase ofhomo-
sexuality").

Theseexemptions canbe readas precluding aberrant actsofsame-sex desire

from taintinganindividual witha homosexual identity.
Sincebisexuality is also a stigmatizedidentity,we wouldexpectthat
isolatedhomoerotic conduct wouldnotearnan individual a bisexualascrip-
tion. The evidencealreadyadducedsupports this,as it suggests thatindi-
vidualsmaintain heterosexual (ratherthanbisexual orhomosexual) identities
despiteisolatedhomosexual conduct.107 My definition ofbisexuality thus
also excludesindividuals whoonlyhaveincidental or occasionalsame-sex
desire.108In theinterest ofsymmetry, mydefinition further excludesindi-
vidualswhoonlyhaveincidental oroccasional cross-sex desire.Thiselimi-
natesfrom thebisexualcategory thosewho,forexample, experimented with
homosexual activityintheir young adulthood
butthenengaged incompletely
heterosexualactivity fortherestoftheir adultlives(orviceversa).
To summarize, myanalysis adoptsa restricteddesire-based definitionof
bisexuality.I firstchoseanddefended desireas theaxisofdefinition. I then
placedtworestrictions onthedesire-based definition: (1) I defined desireas
sexualappetite; and(2) I required morethanincidental desireforbothsexes
beforeclassifying an individual as bisexual.Thedefinition is notpresented
as perfect,
evenforthesepurposes, butsimply as workable.109 Havingde-
finedbisexuality inthisway,I nowexamine whatthemajorsexuality studies
say abouttherelativeincidence of bisexualityand homosexuality in the
population.
2. Thestudies.
Howdo themajorsexuality studies

describetherelativenumbersofbi-
sexualsandhomosexuals inthepopulation?I expectedtofindmanysecon-
darysourcesthatsetforththeanswertothisquestion.To mysurprise,this
proved nottobe thecase.110
Thismightbe explainedbya certain
reluctance
to use theexisting
studiesforanypurpose, giventhattheysuffer froma
number ofproblems.Theseincludeproblems withmethodology inparticu-
lar studies,
problems withobtainingtruthfulaccountsin anystudy,and
problemswithcalibrating orientation
even assumingtruthful accounts.
107. See notes100-106supraandaccompanying text.

108. I addressthequestion
ofwhatconstitutes"incidentalor occasionaldesire"below. See
note146infraandaccompanying text.
109. Thedefinition,forexample,makesno attempt to calibrate"theeroticappealof trans-
gression,"
GARBER, supranote11,at 29; theintensity
ofdesire,see generally
MichaelD. Storms,
Theorieso/Sexual Orientation,38 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 783 (1980); or theways in
whichdesireis connectedtootheraspectsofan individual's
self-conception
(suchas herpoliticsor
self-identification),
see SEDGWICK, supra note4, at25-26.
110. Thesourcethatcameclosesttoa systematic comparisonoftherelative
incidenceofbi-
andhomosexuality
sexuality wasFox,supranote79,at 16-17.Eventhissource,however, leftout
manyofthemajorstudies.

Theseareseriousissuesthatanyonedeploying
thestudiesshouldaddress,
andI do so below.",1
The beliefthattheseproblems are keepingpeoplefromutilizing the
studies,however, is probablyincorrect.Thefamous tenpercent figurefor
homosexuals, forexample, arisesfromtheKinseystudies.112Thissuggests
thatitis nota genericuseofthestudies,butrather usesofthem,
specific that
arebeingsuppressed. Thestarkdiscrepancy between thepopularizationof
theKinseyfindings onhomosexuality andthelackofpopularization ofthe
Kinseyfindings onbisexualityl13
suggeststhatbisexualinvisibility
provides
an alternativeexplanationfortheabsenceofsuchcomparisons. I therefore
thought it usefulto go throughthemajorsexuality studiesandto makea
systematiccomparison.
In evaluating
the"studiesthatpurport
to tellaboutsexin America,"114
RobertT. Michaelandhiscolleaguesdiscussedsevenmajorstudies115:
the
Kinseystudy(whichis actually
comprisedofseparatestudies
formen16and
womenl17),thePlayboystudy,118
theRedbookstudy,l19
theHitestudy,120
the
MastersandJohnson study,121
theJanusandJanusstudy,122
andtheLaumann
Theyalso attested
study.123 tothereliability
oftwounnamed studiesfrom
FranceandEngland,
whichareidentifiable
basedontheir
other
workas the
111. See notes 177-186 infraand accompanyingtext.
112. See,e.g.,BRUCEBAWER,A PLACEATTHETABLE:THE GAY INDIVIDUALIN AMERICAN
SOCIETY 82 (1993) ("From theappearanceof the Kinsey Reportsin 1948 and 1953 untilveryre-
cently,it was a truismthatabout 10 percentof Americansare homosexual."); Jennifer Gerarda
Brown,Competitive Federalism andtheLegislative Incentives
toRecognize Same-Sex Marriage, 68
S. CAL. L. REV. 745,776 (1995) ("Since 1948, whenAlfredC. Kinsey and his associates released
their path-breaking study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, the oft-citedstatisticis thatten
percentof thepopulationis gay.").
113. See MARTIN S. WEINBERG,COLIN J. WILLIAMS & DOUGLAS W. PRYOR, DUAL
ATTRACTION:UNDERSTANDING BISEXUALITY4 (1994) (notingthatKinsey's findingsabout bi-
sexuality"have been generallyignored").
114. ROBERT T. MICHAEL, JoHN H. GAGNON, EDWARD 0. LAUMANN & GINA KOLATTA,
SEX IN AMERICA: A DEFINITIVE SURVEY 15 (1994). It bears note that this is a companion volume
to the Laumann study, see LAUMANN ET AL., supra note 75, writtenby the same researchers who
conducted that study.
115. See MICHAEL ET AL., supra note 1 14,at 15-25.
1 16. K[NSEY ET AL., MALE, supra note 5.
1 17. KINSEY ET AL., FEMALE, supra note 6.
118. The Michael study does not provide a citation for the Playboy study. As there are a
number of Playboystudies to which it could refer,I do not attempta citation here.
119. CAROL TAVRIS & SUSAN SADD, THE REDBOOK REPORT ON FEMALE SEXUALITY
(1975).
120. SHERE HITE, THE HITE REPORT: A NATIONWIDE STUDY ON FEMALE SEXUALITY
(1976).
121. WILLIAM H. MASTERS & VIRGINIA E. JOHNSON, HOMOSEXUALITY IN PERSPECTIVE
(1979).
122. SAMUEL S. JANUS & CYNTHIA L. JANUS, THE JANUS REPORT ON SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
(1993).
123. LAUMANN ET AL., supranote 75.

Spirastudy124 andtheWellings study.l25Othersourcescorroborate thatthis

listis a fairly
comprehensive rendering ofthemajorsexuality studies.126
I narrowed thislistofninestudies in twoways. First,I eliminated the
studies-the Redbook theHitestudy,128
study,127 andtheSpirastudy129-that
didnotincludedatasufficient to permit a comparison oftherelative inci-
dencesofbisexuals andhomosexuals inthepopulation.I theneliminated the
Playboy studybecauseI thought a magazine studywaslikelytobe lessaccu-
rateandlesscredible thantheother studies.130
ThisleftfivestudiesthatI felt
usefully compared theincidencesofbisexualityandhomosexuality.
Thefivestudies definedsexualorientationdifferently,
eachusingsome
pernutation of thethreeaxes of desire,conduct, and self-identification.131
Wherepossible, I adjustedthedefinitionusedbythestudy toconform tomy
restricted desire-baseddefinitionofbisexuality.
As thestudies useddifferent
definitions, and as evenstudiesusingthesamedefinition used different
scales132 ormeasures,133 itis notsurprisingthatthestudies differ
widelyin
124. See ALFREDSPIRA,NATHALIEBAJOS& THE ACSF GROUP,SEXUALBEHAVIORAND

AIDS (1994).
125. KAYE WELLINGS, JULIA FIELD, ANNE JOHNSON & JANE WADSWORTH, SEXUAL BE-
HAVIOR iN BRITAIN: THE NATIONAL SURVEY OF SEXUAL ATTITUDES AND LIFESTYLES (1994).
126. See, e.g.,TamarLewin,Monogamy MorePrevalent thanBelieved,SurveyFinds,L.A.
DAILYNEWS,Oct.7, 1994,atNI (noting popularityofHite,Redbook, andPlayboystudies);Eliza-
bethValkLong,To OurReaders,TIME,Oct. 17,1994,at4, 4 (indicating thattheHite,Laumann,
andMasters andJohnson reports werefeatured as coverstoriesin Timemagazine).
127. TheRedbooksurvey askeda sampleofwomenwhether theyhadhada "sexualexperi-
encewithanother woman"sincetheage of 18,without askingaboutwhether thewomenwhohad
hadsuchexperiences hadalsohadsexualexperiences withmen.TAVRIS & SADD,supranote119,
at 163.
128. TheHiteReportaskeda sampleofwomenthequestion"Do youprefer sex withmen,
women,yourself, ornotat all?"HITE,supranote120,at 261. Thereport noted:"A hundred and
forty-four womenin thisstudy(8 percent) saidtheypreferred sex withwomen.Another seventy-
threeidentified themselvesas 'bisexual,'andeighty-four morewomenhad hadexperiences with
bothmenandwomenbutdidnotansweras topreference (another9 percent)."Id. Thisstatement
couldbe readto meanthat8% of womencouldbe characterized as lesbian,while9% couldbe
characterized as bisexual.Thequestion, however, is infelicitously
wordedformypurposes, given
thatpreference forwomenas sex partners might notbe an exclusiveor evena strong preference.
Similarproblems arisewhenone triesto characterize theremaining 9% as bisexual,giventhatit
probably includesindividuals withonlyincidental experiences withone sex (whoarenotconsid-
eredbisexualundermydefinition). Thus,whiletheHiteReport is widelyknown, I do notrelyon it
here.
129. TheSpirastudy doesnotclearly distinguishbetweenhomosexuals andbisexuals, making
a comparison oftheincidence ofthesetwogroupsimpossible.See generally SPIRAET AL.,supra
note124.
130. Had I notalreadyeliminated it,theRedbookstudywouldalso havebeenexcludedon
thisbasis.
132. CompareKiNSEYET AL.,MALE,supranote5, at639-41(arraying individualsaccording
tothecriteria ofdesireorbehavior on a seven-point scale),withWELLrNGS ET AL.,supranote125,
at 179(arraying individualsaccordingtothecriteria ofdesireorbehavior on a five-point
scale).

manyoftheir results.Forexample,
according tothesestudies,
bisexuals
are
estimatedto comprise from
anywhere 0.2 percent134
to fifteen
percent135
of
thetotalpopulation.Whatis surprising,
however, is thateachstudyfound
thattheincidenceofbisexuality
was greaterthanor comparableto theinci-
denceofhomosexuality.
a. Kinsey(1948 & 1953).
Beginat thebeginning,136
withAlfred Kinsey'sfoundationalstudiesof
sexualbehavior inthehuman male'37 andfemale.138
In bothstudies,Kinsey
defined sexualorientation
accordingtoa combinationofdesire("psychosex-
ualresponse"'39)andconduct("overtsexualexperience"I40),
without reliance
on self-identification.141
Based on thisdefinition,
he createdthefamous
"Kinseyscale,"whichlimned a sexualorientation
continuum spanningfrom
0 to6.142 Thenumbersdenoted thefollowingorientations:
0-No homosexual contactsinvolvingpsychicorphysicalresponse;exclusive
heterosexual
contacts
1-Incidentalhomosexualcontacts;frequent
heterosexual
contacts
2-More thanincidentalhomosexual contacts;
butmorefrequent heterosexual
contacts
3-Equal homosexual andheterosexualcontacts
4-More thanincidentalheterosexualcontacts;
butmorefrequenthomosexual
contacts
5-Incidentalheterosexual
contacts;
frequent
homosexualcontacts
6-No heterosexualcontacts;exclusive
homosexualcontacts143
133. Comparethedefinition of a Kinsey 1 in KINSEYET AL., MALE,supra note 5, at 639-41,

and KiNSEYET AL.,FEMALE,supra note6, at 471,withthedefinition of a Kinsey 1 in MASTERS&
JOHNSON, supra note 121, at 14-15. For moreon thiscomparison,see note 154 infra.
134. WELLINGS ET AL., supra note 125,at 183.
135. See KiNSEY ET AL., MALE, supra note5, at 650-51.
136. This analysismarchesthroughthestudieschronologically in orderto providea sense of
thetimelineon whichthestudieswere conducted. It is probablyworthpointingout,however,that
the firsttwo studies,whichwere conductedbefore1980, are fundamentally differentfromthe last
three,whichwere all conductedin the 1990s. For example,it is somewhatsurprising thatthe Kin-
sey studiesremainthemostwidelycitedof thestudies,despitethefactthattheywere conductedin
an era wheresexual moreswere dramaticallydifferent.See Mezey, supra note 8, at 104 (noting
thatKinsey's workis stillthemost"widelycitedresearchon sexualityin theUnitedStates").
137. KINSEYET AL.,MALE,supra note5.
138. KINSEY ET AL., FEMALE, supra note6.
139. KiNSEY ET AL., FEMALE, supra note 6, at 471; KINSEY ET AL., MALE, supra note 5, at
647.
140. KiNSEY ET AL., FEMALE, supra note 6, at 471; KINSEY ET AL., MALE, supra note 5, at
647.
141. See KiNSEY ET AL., FEMALE, supra note6, at 471-72;KiNSEY ET AL., MALE, supra note
5, at639-41.
142. See KiNSEY ET AL., FEMALE, supra note6, at 471-72;KiNSEY ET AL., MALE, supra note
5, at639-41.
143. See KiNSEY ET AL., FEMALE, supra note6, at 471-72;KINSEY ET AL., MALE, supra note
5, at639-41.

Thisscalehas provedimmensely influential,notonlyin subsequent stud-

butalsoinmorepopular
ies,144 literature.145
WhileKinseyresisted breaking thiscontinuum intothethreecategories
ofheterosexual,bisexual,andhomosexual,146 itwillbe usefulformeto do
so. I defined earlier
bisexuality as theabilitytoexperience desireina more
thanincidentalwayforbothmenandwomen.BecauseKinseyhimself cre-
atedcategories of incidentalsame-sex desireor behavior (Kinsey5s) and
incidental
cross-sex desireorbehavior (KinseyIs), itis easytorestrict his
scaletofitmydefinition. I therefore categorizeKinseyOsandIs as "hetero-
sexual,"Kinsey2s,3s,and4s as "bisexual," andKinsey5s and6s as "homo-
sexual."However, becauseKinseydidnotdisaggregate desireandconduct,
a complete adaptationofhisstandard tomineis impossible.To theextent
thathis definition
captured individuals whohad sexualconduct withboth
sexeswithout desireforbothsexes,itwillbe overinclusive.
Underthisdefinition,
whatis theratioofbisexuals tohomosexuals inthe
Kinseystudies?Kinseyfound that"25percentofthemalepopulation ha[d]
morethanincidental homosexual experience orreactions (i.e., rate[d]from
2-6)foratleastthree yearsbetween theagesof16and55,"147 while"10 per
centofthemales[were]moreorlessexclusively homosexual (i.e., rate[d]5
or6) forat leastthreeyearsbetween theagesof 16 and55."148 Underhis
timeandagerestrictions,Kinseythusfound thatfifteenpercent ofthemale
populationfellwithinthebisexualrange(Kinsey2s, 3s,and4s) whileonly
tenpercentofthemalepopulation fellwithin thehomosexual range(Kinsey
5s and6s). Forwomen, an averageoftenpercent ofunmarried females and
2.5 percentofmarried females ratedfrom 2 to 6 "ineachoftheyearsbe-
tweentwenty andthirty-fiveyearsofage."149In contrast, onlyan averageof
fourpercent ofunmarried females andlessthanonepercent ofmarried fe-
malesrated5 or6 "ineachoftheyearsbetween twentyandthirty-five years
144. See,e.g.,MASTERS& JOHNSON, supranote121,at8 (noting itsdeployment oftheKin-

seyscale);WELLINGSET AL.,supranote125,at 179(noting itsdeployment ofa modified Kinsey
scale).
145. See, e.g.,VeronicaGroocock, AlfredC. Kinsey:A Public/Private Life,NEW STATES-
MAN,Nov.21, 1997,at49 (reviewing bookaboutKinseyandhisreports); WilliamA. Henry, Born
Gay?,TIME,July26, 1993,at36,37 (noting Kinsey'sestimate oftheincidenceofhomosexuality in
thepopulation); JohnLeland,Bisexuality,
NEWSWEEK,July17, 1995,at 44, 47 (discussing Kin-
sey's findings on bisexuality);
JonathanWeiner,TheGayScience,THE NEW REPUBLIC,Jan.2,
1995,at35,36 (discussing methodologyandresults ofKinseyreport).
146. See KiNSEYET AL., MALE,supranote5, at 639 (noting thatsexualorientationis better
describedas a continuum). Indeed,Kinseycautioned thatevenhisseven-point scalewas a distor-
tionofthecontinuum ofsexualorientation.
Id. at647("Finally,itshouldbe emphasized againthat
therealityis a continuum,withindividuals
inthepopulation occupying notonlythesevencatego-
&es whicharerecognized here,buteverygradation between eachofthecategories,as well.").
147. Id.at650.
148. Id. at651.
149. KINSEYET AL.,FEMALE,supranote6, at473.

ofage."150Underthesetimeandagerestrictions,Kinseythusfound thatsix
percentofunmarried womenandmorethan1.5percent ofmarried women
fellintothebisexual
range,whileonlyfourpercentofunmarried womenand
lessthanonepercent ofmarried womenfellintothehomosexual range.In
theKinseystudies,we see a remarkableconsistency in whichthe
ofresult,
percentageofbisexuals
(Kinsey2s,3s,and4s) is 1.5timesthepercentage of
homosexuals (Kinsey5s and6s) forbothmenandwomen.
b. MastersandJohnson(1979).
TheMasters andJohnson study

also deployedtheKinseyscale.151The
study, however, involved only"homosexual" subjects-itadmitted intoits
datapoolonlyindividuals whomtheresearchers deemedtobe KinseyIs to
Kinsey6s.'52Thelimitation wasalmostcertainly toostrictlyenforced-for
example,"[t]heKinsey1 representatives wereacceptedintotheprogram
onlyiftheycoulddocument thattheywerecurrentlylivingina homosexual
relationshipofat leastthreemonths' duration."153
Thisimpliesthatthere-
searchers weredeploying theKinseyscalein a different waythanKinsey
himself did,forit is extremelydoubtfulthattheKinseyresearchers would
haveclassified as a Kinsey1 anyindividual whohadbeeninvolved in a
same-sex relationship ofthatduration.154
TheMasters andJohnson classifi-
cationwouldthusunderreport thenumber ofindividualswhowouldbe bi-
sexualunder my definition.Despitethis,however,theMasters andJohnson
study alsofound thattheincidenceofbisexualitywasgreater thanorcompa-
rabletotheincidence ofhomosexuality.Formen,thepercentage ofbisexu-
als (Kinsey2s,3s,and4s) inthesamplewas46.8percent, whilethepercent-
ageofhomosexuals (Kinsey5s and6s) was48.9percent.155 Forwomen, the
percentage of bisexualswas 59.8 percent, whilethepercentage of homo-
sexualswas 36.6percent.156 Thus,whiletheratioofbisexualmento gay
menwaslowerthanthatintheKinseystudy, thestudy stillfoundthatbisex-
150. Id. at 473-74.

151. MASTERS& JOHNSON, supranote121,at8.
152. See id.at 14.
153. Id. at 14-15.
154. See KiNSEYET AL., FEMALE,supra note6, at471 ("Individualsareratedas I's iftheir
psychosexual responses and/orovertexperiencearedirected
almostentirelytowardindividualsof
theoppositesex,although theyincidentally
makepsychosexualresponsestotheirownsex,and/or
haveincidental sexualcontacts withindividuals
oftheirownsex.... Suchpersonsmakefewifany
deliberate
attempts torenewtheirhomosexual contacts.")
(emphases added);KrNSEYETAL.,MALE
supranote5, at 639 ("Individuals arerated1's iftheyhaveonlyincidental homosexual contacts
whichhaveinvolved physical orpsychicresponse,orincidental
psychicresponse
without physical
contact.").Theindividuals described
as KinseyIs byMastersandJohnson seemhighly unlikelyto
meetthesecriteria.
155. See MASTERS& JOHNSON,
supra note 121, at 29.
156. See id at32.

numbers
incomparable
ualmenexisted togaymen.Andtheratioofbisex-
ualwomentolesbians
wasgreater
thanthatfound
intheKinseystudy.
c. JanusandJanus(1993).
TheJanusstudy reliedonself-identification
alone,askingsubjects tola-
belthemselvesas heterosexual, orbisexual.157
homosexual, Itis thusimpos-
sibletoascertain
howsubjects intheJanus
poolwouldbe defined according
to myrestricteddesire-baseddefinition.
Butitnonetheless bearsnotethat
thestudyreporteda roughly ratioofbisexuals
one-to-one tohomosexuals for
bothmenand women.158 Amongmale respondents, fivepercentself-
as bisexualwhilefourpercent
identified self-identified
as homosexual.159
Amongfemalerespondents, threepercent as bisexual,while
self-identified
twopercent self-identified Thereport
as homosexual.160 also suggestedthat
theremayhavebeensomeunder-reporting "Inourinterviews,
ofbisexuality:
we found... respondents
whoidentified
themselves andre-
as heterosexual
portedhavinghomosexual
relations whoidentified
[and]respondents them-
selvesas homosexuals
andreportedthattheyhaveheterosexual
relations
as
well."161
d. Wellings
(1994).
In a studyofsexualbehaviorinBritain,162
researchersuseda five-point
scale(adaptedfrom theseven-pointKinseyscale)163to ascertain
sexualat-
tractionandsexualexperienceamongmenandwomen.Attraction wasnot
further butsexualexperience
defined,164 wasdefined as "anykindofcontact
withanotherperson that[thesubject]
feltwassexual,"including"kissing
or
touching,or intercourse
or anyotherformof sex."165 UnliketheKinsey
study,theWellings studydisaggregatedattraction
andexperience, yielding
twosetsofdata.166Thefive-pointscale,towhichI haveassigned numbers,
wasas follows:
157. See JANUS & JANUS,

supranote122,at70.
158. See id. WhiletheJanusreport
obtained
dataon same-sexexperiences,
itdidnotreport
similar
dataonbisexualexperiences,
makinga comparisonofthetwoonthisaxisimpossible.
159. Seeid.
160. Seeid.
161. Id. Theseindividuals
could,of course,be Kinseyls and Kinsey5s respectively,
in
whichcase itwouldnotbe underreporting
ofbisexualityundermydefinition.
162. WELLINGSET AL.,supranote125.
163. Seeid. at 179.
164. See id.at 181.
165. Id.
166. See id.

0-only heterosexual
Wellings attraction/experience
Wellings1-mostlyheterosexual
attraction/experience
Wellings andhomosexual
2-both heterosexual attraction/experience
3-mostlyhomosexual
Wellings attraction/experience
4-only homosexual
Wellings attraction/experiencel67
The Wellingsscale is botheasierandharderto adaptto mydefinition of
sexual orientation thantheKinseyscale. It is easierin thattheWellings
scale disaggregates desireand conduct,thereby permitting the isolationof
desire. It is harderin thattheWellingsscale does not clearlydistinguish
betweenincidental desire(or conduct)andnonincidental desire(or conduct).
To be consistent withtheKinsey-based bisexualcategory above,thebisexual
categoryshouldinclude(1) all Wellings2s; and (2) somebutnotall Wel-
lingsIs; and (3) somebutnotall Wellings3s. I therefore indicatethenum-
berof"bisexuals"as a rangeextending froma narrowunderinclusive defini-
tion(ust Wellings2s) to a broadoverinclusive definition (WellingsIs, 2s,
and 3s). By the same logic,I indicatethenumberof "homosexuals"as a
rangeextending froma narrowdefinition (ust Wellings4s) to a broaddefi-
nition(Wellings3s and4s).
Insofaras attractionwas concerned, formen,0.5 percent(narrowdefini-
tion)to 5.0 percent(broaddefinition)
wereattracted tobothmenandwomen,
while0.5 percent(narrowdefinition) to 1.0 percent(broaddefinition) were
attracted(almost)exclusivelyto men.168For women,0.2 percent(narrow
definition)to 4.2 percent(broaddefinition)wereattracted to bothmenand
women,while0.3 percent(narrowdefinition) to 0.5 percent(broaddefini-
tion)wereattracted (almost)exclusivelyto women.169 The Wellingsstudy
thusalso foundbisexualsto existin numbersgreaterthanor comparableto
thenumberofhomosexuals.170
167. See id.at 183.

168. See id.
169. See id.
170. The ratioof bisexualsto homosexuals accordingto thebehavior-based definition
was
similarto thatgenerated underthedesire-based definition.In itsbehavior inquiry,theWellings
studyaskedtwodifferent setsofquestions.Thefirstsetwassimilar totheattraction-basedquestion
described above. See id. at 182;note165supraandaccompanying text. It determinedthatfor
men,0.3% (narrow definition)to4.8% (broaddefinition)
hadsexualexperience withbothmenand
women,while0.4% (narrow definition)
to 1.0%(broaddefinition) hadsexualexperience (almost)
exclusively withmen. See WELLINGSET AL.,supranote125,at 183. Forwomen,0.1% (narrow
definition)to2.5% (broaddefinition)hadsexualexperience withbothmenandwomen, while0.1%
(narrowdefinition) to 0.3% (broaddefinition) had sexualexperience (almost)exclusively with
women.See id.
Thestudyaskeda separate setofquestionspertaining
totheexclusiveness ofsame-sexexperi-
ence. Menandwomenwereaskedaboutthesex oftheirsexualpartners overdifferenttimeperi-
ods-(1) ever;(2) inthelastfiveyears;(3) inthelasttwoyears;and(4) inthelastyear.Id. at209.
Formen,thepercentage ofthosewithbothmaleandfemalepartners as opposedto thepercentage
of thosewithexclusively malepartners forthesetimeperiodswas as follows:(1) 3.4% v. 0.3%
ever;(2) 0.8% v. 0.6% inthelastfiveyears;(3) 0.5%v. 0.6% inthelasttwoyears;and(4) 0.4% v.

e. Laumann(1994).
The Laumannstudycategorizedsexualorientation separatelyaccording

to all three of the common indicia-desire, conduct, and self-
Subjectswereaskedto completethephrase"In generalare
identification.171
you sexually attractedto . . ." withone of fiveresponses: "(1) only men; (2)
mostlymen; (3) bothmen and women;(4) mostlywomen;and (5) only
women."172The scale forattraction is thusidenticalto thefive-pointWel-
lingsscale; I therefore
finessethedifficultiesofmappingthisontomydefi-
nitionin thesamewayas above.173Formen,0.6 percent(narrowdefinition)
to 3.9 percent(broaddefinition) were attractedto bothmen and women,
while 2.4 percent(narrowdefinition) to 3.1 percent(broaddefinition) re-
ported attraction For
to menonly.174 women,0.8 percent(narrowdefinition)
to 4.1 percent(broaddefinition)
reportedattraction
to bothmenand women,
while 0.3 percent(narrowdefinition) to 0.9 percent(broaddefinition) re-
portedattractionto womenonly.175 Takingthenarrowandbroaddefinitions
as settingtheendpointsof a range,thepercentages of "bisexuals"are again
greater thanorcomparabletothoseof"homosexuals."176
0.7% inthelastyear.See id. Forwomen, thepercentageofthosewithbothfemaleandmalepart-

nersas opposedto thepercentageofthosewithexclusively femalepartners
forthesetimeperiods
was as follows-(1) 1.7%v. 0.1%ever;(2) 0.5%v. 0.2%inthelastfiveyears;(3) 0.2% v. 0.2% in
thelasttwoyears;and(4) 0.2% v. 0.2% inthelastyear.See id. Underbothsetsofquestions, the
percentage ofindividuals
havingsexwithbothmenandwomenwas greater thanorcomparable to
thepercentage ofindividuals
havingsexonlywiththeir ownsex. See id.
171. See LAUMANN
ET AL.,supra note75, at 31 1.
172. Id. at658.
173. See note168supraandaccompanying text.
174. See LAUMANN ET AL.,supranote75,at311. Thisstatistic providesthemostsupport for
thenonexistence thesisofanyin thestudiessurveyed.Underthenarrow definitiontherearefour
timesmorehomosexuals thantherearebisexuals.Ifone takesthemidpoint of eachrange,how-
ever,theratioofbisexualstohomosexuals is closetoparity
(2.25: 2.75).
175. See id.
176. In studying conduct,theLaumannstudyagainaskeda setof questions similarto that
askedintheWellings study.Subjectswereaskedaboutthesexoftheirsexualpartners overdiffer-
enttimeperiods-(1) sincepuberty, (2) sinceage 18,(3) in thepastfiveyears,and(4) in thelast
year.Id. Formen,thepercentages ofthosewithbothmaleandfemalepartners as opposedtothe
percentage ofthosewithexclusively malepartners forthesetimeperiodswereas follows:(1) 5.8%
v 0.6% sincepuberty; (2) 4.0% v. 0.9% sinceage 18; (3) 2.1% v. 2.0% in thepastfiveyears;and
(4) 0.7% v. 2.0% inthepastyear.Id. Forwomen, thestatistics
wereas follows:(1) 3.3% v. 0.2%
sincepuberty; (2) 3.7% v. 0.4% sinceage 18;(3) 1.4%v. 0.8% inthepastfiveyears;and(4) 0.3%
v. 1.0%inthepastyear.Id.
Whenaskedto self-identify, 2.0% ofmenself-identified as "homosexual" and0.8% of men
self-identifiedas "bisexual."Id. 0.9% ofwomenself-identified as lesbian,while0.5% ofwomen
identified
as bisexual.Id.

f. Critiquesofthestudies.
Thefivestudies considered aboveall cametoroughly thesameconclu-

sionabouttherelative incidence ofbisexuality to homosexuality-namely,
thattheincidence ofbisexuality wasgreater thanorcomparable totheinci-
denceofhomosexuality. Whilethree problems withthese studies
merit dis-
cussion,noneultimatelydamages thevalidity ofthisconclusion formypur-
poses.
The firstproblemconcerns theflawedmethodology of someof the
studies.
Theprimary methodologicalflawconcerned sampling practices.As
theLaumann researchersnoted, theKinseystudies, theMasters andJohnson
study,andtheJanus andJanus study all failedtoengageinprobability sam-
pling.177Of thestudiescanvassed above,onlytheLaumann studyandthe
Wellings studyusedsuchsampling.178 Another flawrelatedtothetimevari-
able. Again,all studies
buttheLaumann andWellings studiesfailedto ask
questionsthatadequatelynarrowed thetimeframe inwhichindividuals expe-
rienceddesire.Thisledthesestudies tosomeversion ofthe"oncea bisex-
ual,alwaysa bisexual"position, inwhicha womanwhohadmorethaninci-
dentaldesirefora womaninheradulthood butwhohadsubsequently expe-
riencedonlydesireformenwouldstillbe considered bisexual.
The LaumannstudyandtheWellingsstudy, however, did notsuffer
fromeither oftheseflaws.Bothstudiesengagedin probability sampling,
andbothtookthetimevariable intoaccount.179 Andthefindings ofthese
twostudiesabouttherelative numbers ofbisexualsandhomosexuals were
comparable tothefindings oftheother studies.Thus,evenifwe acceptthat
theKinsey, Masters andJohnson, andJanus andJanusstudies wereillegiti-
mate,thisonlymeansthattherearefewer studiesto supportthesamecon-
clusion.
Thesecondproblem is oneendemic toall sexualitystudies,
whichis the
problem ofhavingtorelyon subjective accounts todetermine sexualorien-
tation.Becausedesireandconduct werenotcalibrated directly
by these
studies,
researcherswereforced torelyonindividual accounts ofboth.180 In
thissense,distinguishingdesireand conducton theone handfromself-
identification
ontheother is slightly
misleading, sinceall ofthedatarelied
on someform ofself-identification.
Thefactthatall oftheinformation col-
177. See LAUMANNET AL.,supra note75,at 44, 46 (criticizing

MastersandJohnson
study
andJanusstudy);MICHAELET AL.,supranote114,at 17(criticizing
Kinseystudies).
178. See LAUMANNET AL.,supra note75,at46.
179. See notes 170, 176 supra.
180. Whileattempts
havebeenmadeto ascertain arousal(whichis takenas a proxyforde-
sire)directly,
see ALANHYDE, BODIES OF LAW 173-74(1997),thestudiescanvassedheremadeno
suchattempts.

lectedwasbasedon subjectiveaccountsraisestheconcern thatindividuals

gaveuntruthfulresponses.
Formypurposes, themostdamaging wayinwhichsubjects couldhave
dissembled wouldhavebeenforhomosexual tohavesaidtheywere
subjects
bisexual.If thesehomosexual subjectshadengagedin such"defense bi-
sexuality,"therewouldhave been underreportingof homosexuality and
overreporting inthesestudies.181
ofbisexuality assured
Theconfidentiality
in all ofthestudies,l82
however,diminishes
themotive to dissemblein this
way. Moreover, bisexualsalso haveincentivesto characterize
themselves as
homosexuall83 or heterosexual,184
so we could also expectsome overreport-
ingofhomosexuality andunderreporting ofbisexuality.
The thirdand mostgeneralconcernis thatno studywill everbe able to
tellus whois straight,
whois gay,andwhois bisexual. Thereare weakand
strongversionsof thisconcern. The weak versionis thateven if all indi-
vidualstoldthetruth as theyknewit,somemaynothaveknownthetruth.185
The studieswouldthenbe flawedbecausetheyreliedon somesubjectswith
incomplete knowledge.Thiswill,of course,alwaysbe a problemwithsur-
veydata. Moreover,assumingthatthereis a truth to be known,I thinkit is
reasonableto assumethatthestudies wouldgivea closerapproximation of
theactualnumber of bisexualsthanmorequotidian forms of information.
Thisis becausethestudiesprovideda relatively
self-reflective
andconfiden-
tialforuminwhichindividualscouldarticulate
a stigmatized
desire.Butthis
doesnotmitigate thestrongversion
oftheconcern, whichis thatexperiences
ofsexualorientationareso different
as nottobe commensurable. Evenas-
suming this,however,thestudiesmight thenbe readnottoascertaintheac-
tualnumber ofbisexuals,butrather
tounderscore a disjunction
betweenaca-
demicand populardiscourse.In otherwords,we mightask whyacademic
knowledgeaboutthenumberof homosexualstrickledso quicklyintomain-
streamculture,186
whileacademicknowledge(producedin thesame studies)

182. See JANUS& JANUS,supranote 122,at 5 (discussing confidentialnatureof study);
KINSEYET AL., FEMALE,supranote6, at59 (same);KINSEYET AL., MALE,supranote5, at44-45
(same);LAUMANNET AL.,supranote75,at 71-73(same);MASTERS& JOHNSON, supranote121,
at49 (same);WELLINGSET AL.,supranote125,at 15,20 (same).
183. Forexample, bisexualshavean incentive
to characterize
themselves as gayin orderto
interactsociallywithothersexualorientation
groups.See RUST,CHALLENGE, supranote71,at95-
98 (notingthatsomelesbiansrefuseto interact withordateopenlybisexualwomen).Theymay
also self-identify
as gaysimplybecausethisis themostreadilyavailabletemplate forsame-sex
desire.See textaccompanying notes397-398,infra.
184. Bisexualshavean incentive tocharacterizethemselves
as straight
topartakeof hetero-
sexualprivilege.See Brownfain, supranote83,at 173(describing
married bisexualswhopass as
straight).
185. See, e.g.,SEDGWICK,supranote4, at 26 (notingthatWestern romancetradition,in-
cludingpsychoanalysis, is predicated
on theassumptionthatoursexualdesiresarenottransparent
toourselves).

aboutthenumber ofbisexuals
didnot.Thisinitself
is suggestive
oftheera-
sureoftheconceptualcategoryofbisexuality,
evenifthatcategoryhasno
stablereferent.
C. BisexualErasureas a Cause ofBisexualInvisibility
InthisPart,I madetwoclaims.Myfirst claimwasthatbisexuals arein-

visible.Inmaking thatclaim,I specified thatwhilebisexuals areaffectedby
at leastthreedifferentkindsofinvisibility, onlyone-theinvisibility ofbi-
sexualsqua bisexuals-isthesubject ofthisanalysis.I maintained thatthe
bestwaytoisolatetheextent ofthiskindofinvisibility wastocompare the
relativevisibilities
ofhomosexuality andbisexuality. I thenadducedboth
statistical
andsociological evidence todemonstrate thatbisexualinvisibility
is farmorepervasive thanitshomosexual counterpart.
My secondclaimwas thatthisinvisibility betokens bisexualerasure
ratherthanbisexual nonexistence. Thisrequired metobemorepreciseabout
mydefinition ofbisexuality. I therefore adoptedanddefended a restricted
desire-baseddefinition. Applying thisdefinition (wherepossible)to five
majorsexuality studies,I found thatthestudies all demonstrated thatthein-
cidenceofbisexuals is greaterthanorcomparable totheincidence ofhomo-
sexuals.
Puttingthesetwoclaimstogether, I conclude thatbisexuals areinvisible
in modemAmerican societyandthatthisinvisibility arisesfromerasure
ratherthanfrom nonexistence. I nowturn tothereasons forthiserasure.
II. THE EPISTEMICCONTRACTOF BISEXUALERASURE
Thereareatleastthreedifferentexplanationsforwhybisexualsarebe-
ingerasedinpopular culture.WhileI describe
allthree,
I focusononlyone
ofthem-thepolitical Thispolitical
explanation. explanationpositsthatbi-
sexualsarebeingerasedbecausethetwomostpowerful sexualorientation
constituencies-self-identified
straights
andself-identified
gays-havemu-
tualinvestments
intheerasure ofbisexuals.187
I callthistheepistemiccon-
tractofbisexualerasure.I thensupporttheexistenceofsuchmutual inter-
187. Thishypothesiscomporis withNaomiMezey'sinsightful accountofbisexuality,

which
contends that"thosewhowalkon either sideoftheboundary between andhomo-
heterosexuality
sexualitytirelessly
repairand define"thatboundary to denybisexualsany onticground.See
Mezey,supranote8, at 101. Myanalysis, however,extends beyondMezey'sin positingthatthe
investmentsthatstraights
andgayshavein bisexualerasuresubsumemorethanthedesireto pre-
servethe"ethics"ofheterosexuality
andhomosexuality. Compareid. at 112-20(explaining
bisex-
ual erasure
bynoting heterosexual
andhomosexual withtextaccompanying
ethics), notes258-394,
infra(explainingbisexualerasureby notinginvestmentsin stabilizing
orientation,
preserving
the
importanceofsexas a distinguishing
trait,
andmaintaining norms ofmonogamy).

estsbydemonstrating
howbothstraights
andgaysusethesamestrategies
to
erasebisexuals.
A. Different
Explanations
Therearethreeexplanations forwhybisexuality is invisible

relativeto
homosexuality andheterosexuality.Theseexplanations-which I callontic,
cognitive,andpolitical-aregeneral explanationsforwhyanyintermediate
categorythatstraddles a binaryopposition mightbe rendered invisible.
Whileall oftheseexplanations aredeeplyintertwined, I willarguethatthe
political
explanationis themostpowerful.
Theonticexplanation is thatwe see things
as binariesbecausetheyare
In describing
binaries.188 howhisphilosophical predecessors adopted oppo-
sitesas principles,
Aristotle
notedthat"'theygiveno reasonfordoingso,but
are,as itwere,compelledbythetruth itself."'189 A varietyofmodemthink-
ers have also maintained thatbinaryclassifications reflect"thetwonessof
reality,"190
orreal oppositionsin theworld.191 This is notnecessarily
to say
thatall aspectsof realityare composedof opposedprinciples, merelythat
some-such as night/day, male/female, and life/death-seemingly are.192
Underthistheory, thebinaryopposition betweengay and straight is sucha
"real"binary,andbisexuality is erasedbecauseitdoesnotexist.
The ontic theorymay be assailed on empiricaland nonempirical
grounds.
ThepreviousPartcontested
thistheorybynoting thatstudies
have
shownthatthecategory
ofbisexuality
isjustas "real"as thecategoryofho-
mosexuality.193One couldalso makea nonempirical case forskepticismof
thestraight/gaybinarybasedon itssuspiciousconvenience.The straight/gay
binaryis oftenseenas a simplebackformation fromthemale/female binary,
insofaras thesexualorientationbinarycategorizesindividualsaccordingto
thesex oftheirobjectchoice.194
Butthereis no reasontobelievethatbe-
causethereareonlytwosexes(assumingforthesakeofargument thatthisis
188. See RODNEY NEEDHAM, COUNTERPOINTS 35 (1987) (notingpositionthatoppositions

are "an unevadableresponseof consciousnessto itsenvironment").
189. G.E.R. LLOYD, POLARITYANDANALOGY 15 & n.2 (1966) (quotingAristotle'sPhysics).
190. DavidMaybury-Lewis, The Questfor Harmony,in THE ATTRACTION OF OPPOSITES 1,
12 (David Maybury-Lewis& Uri Almagoreds., 1989) (quoting C.R. HALLPIKE, THE FOUNDA-
TIONSOF PRIMITIVETHOUGHT234 (1979)).
191. See Maybury-Lewis, supra note 190, at 12 (citingHALLPIKE, supra note 190); ROBERT
HERTZ, The Pre-Eminenceof the RightHand: A Studyin ReligiousPolarity,in DEATH AND THE
RIGHTHAND (1960);LLOYD, supra note189.
192. Maybury-Lewis, supra note 190,at 12.
193. See textaccompanyingnotes 110-186supra.
194. As I demonstrate below, themale/female binarymayalso (counterintuitively)
be seen as
a back formationfromthestraight/gay binary.See notes339-341 infraand accompanyingtext.

true)l95 willthemselves
individuals breakintotwodiscrete based
categories
ondesireforonesexortheother.Ifanything, itis counterintuitive
thattwo
setsofdesired objectswouldleadtotwocorresponding setsofdesiring sub-
jects(eachofwhichonlydesired onesetofobjects).196 Coffeeandteaare
twodifferent objects,butwe do notassumethatall individuals breakdown
intomutually exclusivesetsofcoffee drinkers andteadrinkers.
The cognitive explanationis thatthereis a humantendency to under-
standthings interms ofbinaries.197 In otherwords,eveniftheunderlying
realityisnota setofbinaries, ourlimited cognitive capacity as human beings
leadsus to apprehend complex phenomena in terms of"[t]heextreme sim-
plicityof ... binary which"link[s]thefewest
structure," terms capableof
sustaining a relation."198Thistheory, whichis a hallmark ofstructuralan-
thropology,199 positsthatbinary thinking is "a spontaneous andnecessary act
ofthemind,suchthatitis to be foundin everytypeofculture."200 Under
thistheory, bisexualitydisappears as a category becauseofa human blind-
nesstoallintermediate categories.
Thecognitive theory canalsobe contested onempirical andnonempiri-
cal grounds.Theempirical critiquenotesthatourcapture bybinary episte-
mologyis byno meanscomplete.Theintensity ofbinary thinkingvaries
acrossandwithin cultures,201
thereby demonstrating thatitis notaninescap-
ablefactofhuman cognition.Theexistence ofalternative cognitivemodels
also substantiates thispoint-think oftheinfinite subdivision modelofthe
continuum,202 orthetriadic modelofdialectical thinking ("thesis-antithesis-
synthesis").203 Thiscritiqueis supplemented by a nonempirical one. Bi-
sexuality, afterall, is not inimicalto all binaries-consider the bisex-
uallmonosexual binary.Thus,evenifwebelievethatthehuman mindhasa
tendency tobinarize, thatdoesnotexplainwhythestraight/gay binary pre-
vailedoverthebisexual/monosexual binary.Theanswer tothatquestion, I
contend, is political.
195. As notedabove,thereis a growing

literature
challenging
thebinary natureofsex. See
note18supraandaccompanying text.
196. See note8 supra(discussinghowtwoforms ofdesirelead analytically
to at leastfour
categories
ofpersons).
197. Thisviewis perhapsmostprominentlyassociated
withClaudeLevi-Strauss. See gener-
ally CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS,THE SAVAGEMIND 217-44 (George Weidenfeld& Nicolson Ltd.
trans.,
1966)(observingthatbinarythinking
manifests itself
acrossa diversearray
ofsocieties).
198. NEEDHAM, supranote188,atxi.
199. See UriAlmagor,Dual Organization
Reconsidered, inTHEATTRACTION OF OPPOSITES,
supranote190,at 19,19.
200. NEEDHAM, supranote188,at 1.
201. See Maybury-Lewis,supranote190,at 12.
202. See NEEDHAM, supranote188,at230-31.
203. See MichaelH. Hoffheimer,Hegel'sFirstPhilosophy ofLaw,62 TENN.L. REv. 823,
839 (1995).

Thepolitical is thatsomeintermediate
explanation categoriesareharder
tosee becausetheyarecaught inthemiddleofa politicalstruggle.Bisexu-
alityis invisible
notbecauseweareinnately blindtointermediate
categories,
butbecauseagonistic havebifurcated
politics thecontinuumwe wouldoth-
erwisesee.204Underthisexplanation, theclashbetween opposedforces has
compelled a choosing
ofsidesanda denialofintermediate ground.In the
remainder ofthisarticle,
I concern myselfsolelywiththispolitical
explana-
tion.
In considering howpoliticalstrugglehas erasedbisexuals,
I mustfirst
identify therelevant groupsin thatstruggle.I believethattherelevant
groupsarestillheterosexuals,homosexuals, andbisexuals.Butherea cru-
cial shiftindefinition
occurs.Whenthesegroups definethemselvespoliti-
cally,theydefinethemselves accordingto self-identification
rather than
through conduct ordesire.In speakingofthestraight,gay,orbisexualin-
vestments inbisexualerasure,
I thusmeantheinvestments ofseif-identified
straights, gays,andself-identified
self-identified bisexuals.
My hypothesis is thatbisexualsremaininvisiblebecausebothself-
identified andself-identified
straights gayshaveoverlapping political
inter-
estsinbisexualerasure.Itis as ifself-identified
straightsandself-identified
gayshaveconcluded thatwhatever their
otherdisagreements,theywillagree
thatbisexualsdo notexist.Putanother way,thesexualorientation contin-
uumthatrunsfrom straight
through bisexualto gayis a "loopified"
one,in
whichstraightsandgaysareactually closertoeachotheron thisissuethan
eithergroupis tobisexuals.205Becauseofthis,self-identifiedstraightsand
self-identified
gaysenter intowhatI willcallan epistemic contractofbisex-
ualerasure.
B. TheEpistemicContract
Defined
As I define it,anepistemic
contract
is a contract
inthesensethata social
contractis a contract.
In other
words,itis nota conscious
arrangement be-
204. See generally

GARBER, supranote11,at80 (arguing thatpoliticalstruggle
is definedby
oppositepoleswhichsuppressthemiddleground); Mezey,supranote8, at 112-20(notingthestrict
political
enforcement
ofrigidcategoriesofsexualidentity).
205. Cf AkhilReed Amar& Vik Amar,President Quayle?,78 VA. L. REv. 913, 934-35
(1992) (notingincentives
forpoliticalpartiesat oppositeendsof a politicalcontinuum to unite
againstthemiddleofthecontinuum). Theterm"loopification" appearsto be DuncanKennedy's
coinage. See Duncan Kennedy,TheStages of theDecline of thePublic/Private
Distinction,130 U.
PA.L. REv. 1349,1354-57(1982)(describing theoryof"loopification"
inwhichtheendsofa con-
tinuum arecloserto eachotherthaneitheris to themiddle).Otherscholarshavealso notedthis
politicalphenomenon.See, e.g. HerbertMcClosky & Dennis Chong,Similaritiesand Differences
BetweenLeft-Wingand Right-Wing Radicals, 15 BRIT.J.POL. Sci. 329, 343 (1985) (notingthatthe
"programmatic
differencesbetweentheradicalleftandtheradicalrightfrequently
actto obscure
thecharacteristics
thataresharedbythetwocamps"including"intoleranceofambiguity").

tweenindividuals, butrather a socialnormthatarisesunconsciously.206 It

might be fairlyaskedwhytheepistemic contract (or,forthatmatter, theso-
cialcontract)is expressed as a contractas opposedtoa norm.Myanswer is
thatI believethecontractual language better captures thefactthatthear-
rangement arisesbetween distinctgroupswhoenterit becauseof overlap-
ping but not congruent interests. Normsappearto arisefromsocietyas a
whole,while"socialcontracts" seemto ariseoutoftheconstituencies into
whichsocietyis fractured. "Don'task,don'ttell,"forexample, is a con-
tractual
formulation ofthenormof gaysilencethatlaysbaretheinterests
(andimplicitly theconstituencies) involved: straights willnotinquireifgays
willnotflaunt.207 Thechoice,however, is ultimately semantic-one could
easilyrephrase thesubstance ofwhatfollows inthelanguage ofnorms.
Theepistemic contractis epistemic insofar as itrelatesto thenature of
knowledge.It is a socialarrangement aboutwhatcanbe acknowledged or
known.Thisarrangement arisesbetween groups thathavedistinctbutover-
lappinginterests inthepromulgation orrepression ofcertainkindsofknowl-
edge. In thisarticle,I focusonthelatter-that is,on an epistemiccontract
thatrelatestowhatcannot beknown.
Theepistemic contractis a politicalmodelthatcouldbe profitably ap-
pliedbeyondthesexualorientation context to otherintermediate identity
categories.Multiracials, forexample, canbe readily analogized tobisexuals
in manyregards.208 Multiracials, likebisexuals, are alternatively
defined
according touniversalizing definitionswhichstatethatall (oralmostall) in-
dividualsaremultiracial,209 or according to minoritizing definitions
which
statethata smallproportion ofthepopulation is multiracial.210
Multiracials,
likebisexuals, areusuallydefined in thelatter sense,andaccording to an
analogously variedsetofterms.211 As inthebisexualcontext, thetendency
206. See, e.g., JEAN-JACQUESROUSSEAU, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT AND DISCOURSES 14

(G.D.H. Cole trans.,1950) ("The clauses of thiscontract... have perhapsneverbeen formallyset
forth,[but]theyare everywhere thesame and everywhere tacitlyadmittedand recognized...
207. See Yoshino,supra note27, at 556.
208. RuthColker's book Hybridusefullyanalogizes theproblematicbipolarmodel of orien-
tationwiththosethatobtainin thecontextsof race,gender,and disability.See generallyCOLKER,
HYBRID,supra note9.
209. See JohnA. Powell,TheColorblind
Multiracial
Dilemma:Racial Categories
Reconsid-
ered, 31 U.S.F. L. REv. 789, 797-98 (1997) (notingthatif multiracialmeans thatan individualhas
ancestryof differentraces,then"virtuallyeveryoneis multiracial").
210. See,e.g.,LutherWright,Jr.,Who'sBlack,Who'sWhite,
and WhoCares:Reconceptual-
izingtheUnited States'sDefinition
ofRaceandRacialClassifications,
48 VAND.L. REv.513,557-
58 (1995) (notingthatbiracialpeople, definedas people withparentsof different
recognizedraces,
compriseroughlythreepercentof birthsin theUnitedStates).
211. Such shiftingdefinitions
can be seen in theUnitedStatesCensus's categorizationof in-
dividualswithbothwhiteand black ancestry. From 1790, when the Census began to distinguish
(based on third-party
reports)betweenwhitesand blacks, to 1850, no intermediate categorywas
recognized.
See Christine
B. Hickman,
TheDevilandtheOneDropRule:RacialCategories,
Afri-
can Americans,and the US. Census,95 MICH. L. REv. 1161, 1182 (1997). This is similarto mod-

Jan.2000] ERASURE
BISEXUAL 393
to adoptnarrow binarizing definitions ofracecanbe tracedtoanxieties felt

byboththedominant andthesubordinate groups.212Recently, self-identified
likeself-identified
multiracials, bisexuals, haveorganized toresistsuchbi-
narizingdefinitions.2l3 And theseself-identified multiracials,like self-
identified
bisexuals, facethedilemma of whether to
simply addtheinterme-
diategroupas a third categoryortodeployittomoredeeplyinterrogate the
principleofracialcategorization.214
Atthesametime, however,thepolitical modeladduced hereclearly does
notdescribeallintermediate categories. Thecontemporary American middle
class,forexample, is bothan intermediate category (as itsnamewouldsug-
gest)andmuchmorevisiblethananyotherclass.215Thisshouldinspire
cautioninapplying themodeltooquickly eventogroups thatseemsuperfi-
ciallytobe greatly illuminatedby it.216 I thereforeconstrain myself in this
analysistothecontext ofsexualorientation.
Theepistemic contract ofbisexual erasureis a particularly
powerful one.
Thiscanbe seenbycontrasting itto theepistemic contract ofhomosexual
erasureexemplified bythemilitary's current"don'task,don'ttell"policy.217
"Don'task,don'ttell"satisfiesbothcriteria ofan epistemic contract. It is a
els of orientationthatfail to recognizethebisexual possibility.See notes 226-232, 238-242 infra

and accompanyingtext. From 1850 to 1910, the Census recognizedan intermediate categoryof
"mulattoes." See JOELWILLIAMSON,NEW PEOPLE: MISCEGENATION AND MULATrOESIN THE
UNITEDSTATES24 (1995); Hickman,supra,at 1185. Indeed,in the 1890 census,enumerators were
asked to categorizethe intermediate span betweenblack and whiteaccordingto a set of named
fractions(octoroon,quadroon,mulatto).See WILLIAMSON, supra, at 112; Hickman,supra, at 1186.
This partitionedcontinuumis reminiscent of the Kinsey scale. See note 143 supra and accompa-
nyingtext. Afterthe census of 1920, however,the Census Bureau moved away fromthe named
fractionsrule to the "one drop rule." See WILLIAMSON, supra, at 114; Hickman,supra, at 1187.
This rule of hypodescentcould be analogizedto the "one act rule" in the orientation context. See
note99 supra and accompanyingtext.
212. See F. JAMESDAVIS, WHO IS BLACK? ONE NATION'SDEFINITION137 (1991) (noting
thatbothblacks and whitessupporta binarizing"one droprule").
213. See Hickman,supra note211, at 1164-65.
214. See id. at 1165 ("One wingof thisnew multiracialmovementarguesthata new 'multira-
cial box' should be made available forthe growingnumberof childrenof interracialmarriages.
Anotherwingof thismovement,in books and law reviewarticles,suggeststhattheadditionof this
categoryshouldbe a partof a wholesaleredefinition of theracial identitiesof mostAmericans.").
215. This discrepancyin visibilitybetweenthemiddleclass and otherintermediate categories
such as bisexualsand multi-racials maybe due to thedifferent incentivesfeltby theprivilegedclass
in each context. The "upperclass" may feelpressureto erase itselfin ways thatheterosexualsand
whitesmay not. See PETERW. COOKSON,JR.& CAROLrNEHODGES PERSELL,PREPARING FOR
POWER:AMERICA'SELITE BOARDrNG SCHOOLS28 (1985) ("Partof thesocializationforpower is
learninghow to conceal wealth,or at least minimizeits importanceby neveropenlyreferring to it
....'). I am indebtedto Bruce Ackermanforraisingthe discrepancy,and to Zachary Potterfor
suggestingthisexplanationforit.
216. Multiracialsand bisexuals, for example,can be easily distinguishedon a numberof
grounds,such as thefactthatmulti-racial identityis oftenthoughtto be geneticand heritable,while
bisexualidentityis oftenthoughtto be behavioraland notinherited.
217. 10 U.S.C. ? 654 (1998).

contract insofar as it articulatestheneedsof twodistinct constituencies-

crudely, self-identifiedstraightsandself-identified gays. As conventionally
told,eachsidegetssomething outofthepolicy2l8-self-identified straights
securea military in whichhomosexuality is repressed ("don'ttell");self-
identified gaysgarner a militaryinwhichgayscanostensibly servewithout
beingsubjected to witchhunts or harassment ("don'task").219And"don't
ask,don'ttell"is epistemic insofar as whatis reallyatissueinthecontract is
a jointrepression ofknowledge. Self-identified
straightsandself-identified
gayshavebeenledthrough theirdistinctbutoverlapping interests to agree
thatindividuals in themilitary do nothaveto ownwhattheyknow-that
homosexuals existintheir ranks.
As I havearguedelsewhere, theexistence ofthe"don'task,don'ttell"
policysignifies bothcontinuity anddiscontinuity withpriorsocialnorms. 220
It signifiescontinuity inthatthepolicydidnotspring full-fledged from the
headofCongress, butrather grewoutoftheunderlying culture.221 In other
words, "don'task,don'ttell"arisesoutofa pervasive strategyofsilencethat
haslongaffected gaysinpublicculture-astrategy thatpermits gaystolive
if
as equalcitizensifandonly theyagreeto "pass"as straight.222 At the
sametime, however, "don'task,don'ttell"alsosignifies a breakdown ofthat
underlying culture, forifthatculture werestillextant, therewouldbe no
needtocodify it.223
In contrast to "don'task,don'ttell,"bisexualerasure as suchneedsno
explicitlegal enforcement. This is because bisexual erasure is stillsuffi-
ciently rootedinsocialculture andthusappearsnatural, justas homosexual
erasure appeared natural when"don'task,don'ttell"was so rooted.What
explains thediscrepancy?
Theansweris thatstraights andgaysarethemostpowerful constituen-
cies inboth ofthesecontracts, andthatgaysfeeldifferently abouthomosex-
ual erasure thantheydo aboutbisexualerasure.Theepistemic contract of
"don'task,don'ttell"is less a case of realinterest convergence between
straights andgaysthanitis a caseofcompromise. Thepolicysplitsthedif-
218. See, e.g., Eskridge& Frickey,supra note40, at 92 (describing"don't ask, don't tell" as a
compromise);
DianeH. Mazur,TheUnknown
Soldier:A Critique
of "GaysintheMilitary"
Schol-
arship and Litigation,29 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 223, 227-28 (1996) (same); Francisco Valdes,
Queers,Sissies,Dykes,and Tomboys:
Deconstructing
theConflation of "Sex," "Gender,"and
" inEuro-American
"SexualOrientation LawandSociety,
83 CAL. L. REV.1,370(1995)(same).
219. There is evidence thatthe witchhunts have persistedunderthe "don't ask, don't tell"
policy. See C. DIXON OSBURN& MICHELE M. BENECKE,SERVICEMEMBERSLEGAL DEFENSE
NETWORK,CONDUCTUNBECOMINGCONTINUES:THE FIRST YEAR UNDER "DON'T ASK, DON'T
TELL, DON'T PURSUE" 11 (1995) (notingdocumentation of 15 actual or attemptedwitchhuntsun-
der "don't ask,don't tell").
220. See Yoshino,supra note27, at 556-57.
221. See id.at556.
222. See id.
223. See id. at 556-57.

ferencebetween theself-identifiedstraightinterest in theremovalof gays

from themilitary andtheself-identified gayinterest intheability
ofgaysto
serveopenly(although it strongly favorstheformer).224 Thisis whythis
particularepistemic contractis so unstable-each side(andparticularly
the
gayside)wantsmorethanthestatusquoprovides.225 In contrast,
theepis-
temiccontract ofbisexualerasure is,atleastinsofar as gaysandstraights
are
concerned, a caseofrealinterest convergence. Bothstraights
andgays,for
differentreasons,wantbisexualsto be invisible. Because thesetwo
groups-which againarethemostpowerful sexualorientation
constituen-
cies-wantthisinvisibility, thisepistemic contract is muchmorestable.In-
deed,itis so stableas nottobeperceived as a contractatall.
C. Strategies
ofErasure
Theexistence ofa bilateralcontract

ofbisexualerasure is supportedby
thefactthatbothstraightsandgaysengageinthesamestrategies ofbisexual
erasure.Therearethree suchstrategies:
(1) classerasure,
(2) individual
era-
sure,and(3) delegitimation.Thesestrategies implytheacceptance ofsuc-
cessivelystronger claimsaboutbisexualexistence-the firststrategydoes
notrecognize thecategory of "bisexuality";
thesecondacknowledges the
categorybutexcludesan individual fromit;andthethird acceptsindividual
as a stableidentity
bisexuality butstigmatizesit.
1. Straight
deployments
ofthestrategies.
Classerasure occurswhenstraightsdenytheexistence oftheentire bi-

sexualcategory. Thiscanoccurexplicitly orimplicitly.A fewdecadesago,
explicit
denialappearsto havebeenfairly common evenamongacademic
someofwhombelieved
theorists, thatall self-identified
bisexuals wereactu-
allyhomosexuals indenial.226Whiletheclaimthat"there is no suchthingas
bisexuality" remainspartofthecommon wisdom today,227perhaps themore
prominent form ofdenialis nowtheimplicit one. Suchimplicit denialoften
occursthrough theuseofthestraight/gay binaryas a complete meansofde-
scribingall individuals.228
As discussedabove,229thiswasthestrategy used
224. See COLKER,HYBRID,supranote9,at64.

225. Gaydissatisfactionwiththestatusquo canbe seenin thelegalchallenges tothepolicy.
See,e.g.,Ablev. UnitedStates,155F.3d628,631 (2d Cir.1998)(upholding "don'task,don'ttell"
againstconstitutionalchallenge);Philipsv. Perry,106 F.3d 1420,1424 (9thCir. 1997) (same);
Richenberg v. Perry,97 F.3d 256,260 (8thCir.1996)(same);Thomasson v. Perry,80 F.3d 915,
927 (4thCir.1996)(same).
226. See Fox,supranote79,at21. Onetheorist, forexample, maintainedthatbisexuality
was
"a statethathas no existencebeyondtheworditself," thatis, "an out-and-out
fraud."EDMUND
BERGLER,HOMOSEXUALITY:DISEASEORWAYOF LIFE 80-89 (1956).
227. GARBER,supranote11, at 16.
228. See notes45-46supraandaccompanying
text.

bytheRomerCourt.A moresubtlestrategy classerasure

ofimplicit is the
ofbisexuality
description chic"inthemainstream
as "bisexual (andthuspre-
straight)
sumptively press.230As thephrasesuggests, is here
bisexuality
orfad-itsappearance
madevisibleas a phase,fashion, withits
is inscribed
imminentdisappearance.231 impending
Indeed, evanescencemaybe thepre-
forvisibility.232
condition
Individual
erasurerecognizes thatbisexualsexistas a class,butcontests
individual
thata particular is bisexual.Suchchallenges by straightsoften
arisewhena self-identified
bisexual is accusedofbeinga duplicitous ornas-
centhomosexual.233 In either case,thebisexualself-ascription is seenas a
"phase"from whichan individual willultimately emerge.234 Sucherasure
the"phase"paradigm
replicates ofbisexualchicat theleveloftheindivid-
ual-ontogeny hererecapitulates phylogeny. Self-described is
bisexuality
thusseennotas a stableindividual identitybuta placefrom whicha stable
monosexual is acknowledged
identity orchosen.
delegitimation
Finally, occurswhenstraights acknowledge theexistence
ofindividualbisexualsbutattach a stigma tobisexuality.Itmayseemoddto
characterize
delegitimationas a strategy giventhatit
ofbisexualinvisibility,
makesbisexuality morevisible.Butbecauseitchillstheexpression ofbi-
sexualitybyportraying itonlyina negative way,I include ithere.Common
ofbisexuals
stereotypes
straight portray themas promiscuous, as duplicitous,
andespecially
as closeted, as bridges forHIV infectionfrom the"highrisk"
gaypopulation tothe"lowrisk"straight population.235

230. See,e.g.,BisexualChic:Anyone Goes,NEWSWEEK, May27, 1974,at90,90 (noting that
bisexuality"wasprobably inevitable,"
since"his-and-her hairstylesandroleassignments
clothes,
blurred thelinebetween thesexesuntiltheyoverlapped,theonlything lefttoswapwassexitself');
TheNewBisexuals,TIME, May 13, 1974,at 79 (describing ofbisexuality);
fashionability see also
GARBER, supranote11,at 18-24(describing bisexualchic).
231. See GARBER, supranote11,at20 (askingwhether bisexualchicturns into"a
bisexuality
fashion-likeplatform shoes,bell-bottomed or double-breasted
trousers, suits-thatappearsand
thendisappears, goesunderground, onlytobe 'revived'witha difference?").
232. An analogymaybe madeto Leo Bersani'shypothesis thatAIDS has madegaysmore
visibleinpartbecauseitpromises theirultimatedisappearance-gay visibility
is mademostpalat-
ableat themoment itstransience
is underscored.LEOBERSANI, HOMOS21 (1995). Whileobvi-
ouslyless sinister,theconceptofbisexualchicmayoperatein thesameway,reassuring straight
culturethatitis safetolookatbisexuals bycharacterizing
themas a passingfancy.
233. See GARBER, supranote11,at 145.
234. Theinstability ofbisexuals,whichis framed herein temporal termsas a "phase"argu-
ment,can also be framed as in descriptions
in spatialterms, ofbisexualsas being"on thefence."
See, e.g.,AmberAult,Hegemonic Discoursein an Oppositional Community: LesbianFeminist
StigmatizationofBisexualWomen, inQUEERSTUDIES, supranote15,at204,206.
235. See Ochs,supranote63,at227.

ofthestrategies.
2. Gaydeployments
Thatgaysandlesbians wouldcolludewithstraights intheerasure ofbi-

sexualsis superficially surprising.236As sexualminorities who have them-
selvesbeenrendered invisible, one wouldexpectthatgaysand lesbians
wouldbe loathto assumetheroleofoppressor relativeto othersexualmi-
Yetgaysdeployall ofthestrategies
norities.237 ofbisexualerasure usedby
straights.Thissupports thethesisthatbisexualinvisibility mustbe under-
stoodnotas theunilateral erasure ofbisexuals
bystraights, butthebilateral
erasureofbisexuals bybothstraights andgays.
gaysdeployall three
Self-identified ofbisexualerasure-class
strategies
erasure,individual erasure, anddelegitimation. Speaking of classerasure,
Christopher Jameslaments thephenomenon inwhicha queer,gay,orlesbian
theorist
"excludes bisexuality as a relevant
category ofsexualidentity," and
then"claimsbehaviorally bisexual peopleortextswithbisexualcharacters or
contentas 'queer,''gay,'or'lesbian."'238 James goesontogiveexamples of
scholarlytextsthatelidethebisexualcategory andunself-consciously cate-
gorizeindividualswhomhe believeswouldbe moreappropriately deemed
bisexualas queer,gay,orlesbian.239 Thispracticeofelision,ofcourse,is
notlimited totheacademy.As Marjorie Garber notes,popularcompendi-
umsofgay"lists,"suchas The Gay Book ofDays240andThe Gay/Lesbian
Almanac,241 purport to listonlygays(as theirtitleswouldsuggest), butin-
cludemanybisexuals intheir pages.242
Evenwhengaysformally recognize bisexualsas a category,theycan
peremptorily evacuate individuals fromthatcategory.243 A classicexample
236. See WEINBERG ET AL.,supra note 113, at 8 (notingwithsurprisethatbisexuals reported

homosexualsto be just as negativeas heterosexualsaboutbisexuality).
237. See id. at 117 (notingthatbisexuals,whenconfronted withhostilityfromgays, may be
dismayedbecause theyview themselvesvictimizedby thesame kindof prejudiceas gays).
238. James,supra note 15, at 228. To his credit,Jamesacknowledgesthatsome usages of the
words"queer," "gay," and "lesbian" mightbe thoughtto encompassbisexuality.Id. at 228-29. (I
thinkthisis mosttruefortheterm"queer"-bisexuals, forexample,would seem to fitcomfortably
withinthe usage of the word "queer" to denoteall those who fall outside of the regimesof the
"nornal," see supra note 3.) But Jamespointsout thatbecause thesewords signifyexclusiveho-
mosexualityformanyothers,theoristswho use the termsexpansivelyshould declare and justify
such usage. James,supra note 15, at 229.
239. See id. at 229 (criticizingDAVID BERGMAN,GAIETY TRANSFIGURED:GAY SELF-
REPRESENTATION IN AMERICANLITERATURE(1991) forappropriating Herman Melville, Henry
David Thoreau,and HenryJamesas gay men); James,supra note 15, at 229-30 (criticizingKARLA
JAY& JOANNEGLASKOW,LESBIANTEXTSANDCONTEXTS:RADICALREVISIONS(1990) forap-
propriatingEmilyDickinson,VirginiaWoolf,H.D., and Djuna Barnesas lesbians).
240. MARTiN GREIF, THE GAY BOOK OF DAYS: AN EVOCATIVELY ILLUSTRATIVE WHO'S
WHO OF WHO IS, WAS, MAY HAVEBEEN, PROBABLYWAS, ANDALMOSTCERTAINLYSEEMSTO
HAVEBEEN GAY DuRINGTHEPAST5,000YEARS(1982).
241. JONATHANNED KATZ, THE GAY/LESBIAN ALMANAC: A NEW DOCUMENTARY (1983).
242. See GARBER, supra note 11, at 49-50.
243. See Ault,supra note234, at 208.

ofsuchindividualerasure
canbe foundin thebeginning
oflesbiantheorist
TerryCastle'sTheApparitional invokesthefigure
Lesbian.244Castlethere
of GretaGarbo,whomsheviewsas exemplifying thebook'sthesis-that
"[w]henit comesto lesbians. . . manypeoplehave troubleseeingwhat'sin
ofthem."245
firont Thissocialmyopiaseemsto extend tobisexualsas well,
becauseCastlecharacterizes Garboas a "lesbianactress"246evenafterob-
servingthatGarbo"occasionally hadaffairswithmenas wellas women."247
Castle'ssubsequent concession thatGarbocouldbe characterized as a bisex-
ual exoneratesherfrom thecharge ofclasserasure.248Buthersummary re-
jectionofthatcharacterization implicatesherin individualerasure-Castle
believesit "moremeaningful to referto [Garbo]as a lesbian"249because
"whileGarbosometimes makeslovetomen,shewouldrather makeloveto
women."250 Buthowdo we knowthatGarboprefers womentomen?And,
evenassuming thatwe knowthatGarbosexually preferredwomentomen,
whydoesthismakehera lesbian?
Likestraights,gayscanoften engageinthiskindoferasure bycharac-
individuals
terizing whoself-describe as bisexualas goingthrougha "phase"
thatwillendinmonosexuality.251 Thebeliefthatbisexualsareprotohomo-
sexualsis a particularly
prevalentoneamonggays.252 Thegreaterforcewith
whichthisbeliefis expressed in thegaycommunity maybe partially ex-
plainedbyexperiential skepticism. Likestraights,gayshaveobserved "bi-
sexuals"subsequently comeout as gay.253But presumably unlikeself-
identified someself-identified
straights, gays have gonethrough thisphase
themselves.254Thisexperience mayleadthem tobe suspiciousofthosewho
claimbisexuality as a stableidentity.Theclaimthatbisexualsareprotoho-
mosexuals mayalsobe moreintensely heldinthegaycommunity, perhaps
244. TERRY CASTLE, THE APPARITIONAL LESBIAN: FEMALE HOMOSEXUALITY AND MOD-
ERNCULTURE(1993).
245. Id. at 2.
246. Id.
247. Id. at 15.
248. See id.
249. See id.
250. Id.
251. See WEINBERGET AL., supra note 113, at 117. This characterization is particularly
thattheirhomosexuality
ironicgiventhatgays themselvesare oftentoldby straights is just a phase
on theirway to heterosexuality.See Teemu Ruskola,MinorDisregard: The Legal Construction of
theFantasythatGayandLesbianYouth Do NotExist,8 YALE J.L.& FEMINISM269, 280 (1996).
252. See, e.g.,PaulaC. Rust,SexualIdentity
andBisexualIdentities:
TheStruggleforSelf-
ina Changing
Description SexualLandscape,inQUEERSTUDIES,supranote15,at64,65.
253. See GARBER,supranote 11, at 145 (describinghow Boy George, David Geffen,and
EltonJohnall self-identified
as "bisexual"before"comingout" as gay).
254. See, e.g., RUST,CHALLENGE, supra note 71, at 44 ("Bisexual identityis oftenconsid-
ered a steppingstoneon theway to comingout as a lesbian. Slightlymorethanhalfof [thelesbians
in the study]called themselvesbisexual before they came out as lesbians; in hindsight,these
womenmightwell see theirearlierbisexualidentity as a transitional
stage.").

whenbisexualsabandon
becausegayshavemoreto lose thanstraights
them.255
Politicized maybe particularly
homosexuals pronetoholding
this
view.256
Finally, gaysdelegitimate bisexualsintwoways.Again,themoreobvi-
ous wayis simpledenigration-"the lesbianandgaycommunity abounds
withnegative imagesofbisexualsas fence-sitters,traitors, closet
cop-outs,
cases,peoplewhoseprimary goalinlifeis toretain
'heterosexual
privilege,'
[or] power-hungry seducerswho use and discardtheirsame-sexlovers
, gayscanalsodelegitimate
,"257 Less intuitively, bisexuals
byimperson-
atingthem.Somemight contend thatsuch"defense bisexuality"
increases,
rather thandecreases,bisexualvisibility,
as gayswhosaytheyarebisexual
swelltheranksofthebisexualcategory. Butthetransienceandthequality
ofthevisibilitymustalsobe considered-such gaysmaylaterrevealthem-
selvestobe gay,thereby detractingfrom thecredibility
ofthosewhoexperi-
encetheir as a stableidentity.
bisexuality
D. TheEpistemicContract
as a Cause ofBisexualErasure
Whiletheerasure ofthebisexualcategory canbe explained through a

variety
ofhypotheses,thepolitical
hypothesisis themostplausible.I there-
forefocusonthatexplanation,
maintainingthatself-identifiedstraights
and
gayshavesharedpoliticalinterests
self-identified thatlead themintoan
epistemiccontract
ofbisexualerasure.Theexistence ofsucha contract is
bythefactthatbothstraights
demonstrated andgaysusethesamestrategies
toerasebisexuals.Thissuggests
thattheerasure is beingdriven notjustby
straight butalsobygayinterests.
interests, I nowexplore thenature ofthose
interests.
III. MONOSEXUALINVESTMENTSINTHEEPISTEMICCONTRACT
In thisPart,I hypothesizethatbisexuals areerasedbecausetheir visibil-

is
ity threatening tothreeinterests
thatbothstraightsandgayspossess: (1)
an interestinthestabilityofsexualorientation categories;
(2) an interestin
theprimacy of sex as a diacritical
characteristic;
and(3) an interestin the
preservationofmonogamy. Whiletheseinterests overlap
insomeways,they
arealso distinctin others.I thusdisaggregate eachinterestintothreepor-
tions:(1) theportion oftheinterestthatis sharedbybothstraights andgays;
255. See Mezey,supra note8, at 118 ("As an oppressedsubculture,

homosexualcommunities
rely on an ethic of homosexualidentityto maintainstrengthand coherenceagainstthe constant
onslaughtof virulentattacks....").
256. See WEINBERGET AL.,supra note 113,at 117.
257. Lisa Orlando,Loving WhomWe Choose, in BI ANY OTHERNAME: BISEXUALPEOPLE
SPEAKOuT 223, 224 (Loraine Hutchins& Lani Kaahumanueds., 1991).

(2) theportion oftheinterest thatis distinctively and(3) theportion

straight;
oftheinterest thatis distinctively
gay.
It willbe usefulto entertwoqualifications beforeembarking on this
analysis.First,I ammindful thatseparating thepartiesandattributingview-
pointsto themin thewaythatI haverisksessentializing theopinions that
members ofeachcategory haveabouttheothers.After somethought, I have
overridden thisweighty objection.I do so becauseI believethatcertain
opinions are morelikelytobe heldbyonegroupthananother, although it
willnotbe heldbyall members or onlymembers ofthatgroup.258 Thus,
whenI speakofthe"investment ofself-identified gaysinbisexualerasure," I
do notmeanthatall gaysoronlygayshavethisinvestment. Rather,I indi-
catetheinvestment inbisexualerasure thatis morelikelytobe heldbyself-
identified gaysthanbyanyother group.
Second,I wishto stressthe importance of distinguishingbetween
stereotypes ofbisexualityandtherealities those
underlying stereotypes. The
following analysiswillsometimes identify a viewpointas a stereotypebut
nonetheless giveitweight intheanalysis.Thatweight, however, arisesonly
fromthe factthatthe investments of self-identified
straightsand self-
identified gayswilloftenbe driven byperceptions ratherthanbyrealities.
Indeed,I willarguethatthestereotypes thatbisexualsare(1) politically
un-
reliable,(2) completely sex-blind, or (3) intrinsically
promiscuous, areex-
tremely powerful inshaping straightandgayattitudes aboutbisexuals.Such
argumentation, ofcourse, shouldnotbe takenas accession tothevalidity of
thosestereotypes.
A. Stabilization
ofSexualOrientation
Bisexuality
destabilizes sexualorientationbymaking itlogically
impos-
sibletoprovethatonehasa monosexual identity.Bothstraights andgays
have sharedinvestments in stabilizingtheiridentities,
as members of all
groupsarelikely
todrawsomecomfort from rigidsocialorderings.Straights
andgay,however, alsohavedistinctive investmentsinstabilizingorientation
categories.
Forstraights, itis an investmentintheretention ofheterosexual
privilege;
forgays,it is an investment in theretentionoftheimmutability
defenseandoneintheability toform aneffective
politicalmovement.
1. Sharedinvestment.
Bisexualitycallsintoquestion
thesexualorientation
oftheself. To see
this,contrast
theease ofproving oneis straight
orgayin a worldin which
258. Compare, e.g.,COLKER,HYBRID,supranote9, at 21-24(notingthatmanygayshave

negative
opinions aboutbisexuality),
with,
e.g.,id. at24 (noting
thatsomegaysweremoretolerant
ofColker'sfluidsexuality
thansheherself
was).

bisexualsarenotacknowledged to existwiththedifficulty of proving the

samething ina worldinwhich bisexuals arerecognized. In a worldthatde-
niesbisexualexistence, cross-sex desireandsame-sex desirearemutually
exclusive.259 Thismeansthatthepresence ofcross-sex desireipsofactone-
gatesthepresence ofsame-sex desire, andviceversa.Thus,demonstrating
cross-sex desireis sufficienttoprovethatoneis heterosexual andnothomo-
sexual.
Thatwe livein thisworld-andunderthisanalytic regime-isdemon-
strated by howsexualorientation is provedhere. As I willshowin some
detail,allegedharassers inthesexualharassment context haveadducedex-
actlysuchclaimsofcross-sex desireas dispositive oftheirheterosexuality.260
Similarly, legalinstitutionsassigning individuals a homosexual identityhave
presumed thatanyindividual whohasmanifested same-sex desire(andnot
deployed thequeen-for-a-day exception) is homosexual.261
In a worldthatrecognizes bisexuals, a would-be heterosexual mustshow
(1) thathe is notgayand(2) thathe is notbisexual.(WhileI takehetero-
sexualityas myexample, itshouldbe clearthatthisanalysis is equallyappli-
cabletohomosexuality.) Thefirst he cando byshowing cross-sex desire.
Thesecondhe canonlydo byproving theabsenceofsame-sex desire.But
thisis impossible to do,as itis impossible toprovea negative.Thus,after
thebisexualpossibility is acknowledged, itis notonlyharder, butlogically
impossible, toproveone'sheterosexuality. Evidenceofcross-sex desireis
nonresponsive tothecharge thatoneharbors same-sex desire,fornoamount
oflovingattention thata mangivestohiswifecanprovethathe doesnot
lustinhisheartformen.In ordertosafeguard a regime inwhich"straight-
ness"(or "gayness") canbe proved, all monosexuals mustrepress bisexual
existence.
Bothstraights and gayshavea sharedinvestment in stabilizing their
identities,as members ofall groups takecomfort in knowing theirplacein
thesocialorder.Thisinterest mayseemlessintuitive forgays,whooccupy
a disfavored placeinthatorder.Butas MaryMcIntosh hasnoted, rigidcate-
gorization maybe comforting eventothosestigmatized within it,because"it
appearsto foreclose on thepossibility of drifting backintonormality and
259. Thisanalysisassumes,withoutendorsing,
theerasure ofasexualityas an analytic
possi-
bility.See note8 supra.
260. See notes520-534infraandaccompanying
text.See,e.g.,N.H.REV.STAT.ANN.? 170-
B:2 (1992) (defininganyonewhoengagesin same-sexoralor analsex as a homosexual); Wood-
wardv. UnitedStates,871 F.2d 1068,1069n.l (Fed. Cir. 1989)(quotingSecretary of theNavy
Instruction1900.9A)(describing
Navy'spre-1993
policydefining anyonewithsame-sex desireas a
homosexual).
261. See COLKER,HYBRID,supranote9, at 45-56(discussing thelegaldefinitionofhomo-
sexualityinadoptionandmilitary
contexts).

thusremovestheelement
ofanxiouschoice."262
RobinOchsprovides
anec-
dotalsupport
forthishypothesis:
WhenI haveaskedgaymento explaintheirfearsaboutbisexuality andbisex-
ual people,onethemehasrepeatedly arisen.As onegaymanputit,"Coming
outas gaywas thehardest andmostpainful thingI haveeverdonein mylife.
Now I'm finallyat a placewhereI havea solididentity,
a community,a place
to callhome. Bisexualsmakemeuncomfortable becausetheirexistence
raises
forme thepossibility thatI mightbe bisexualmyself.Andcomingto terms
withmyidentity was so hardforme thefirsttimearound,I cringeat the
thought of havingto go throughsucha long,hard,painfulprocessa second
time."263
Thusgays,alongwithstraights,sharean interest
in identity
stabilization,
sincesuchstabilization
rootsthemina communityandrelievesthemofthe
anxiousworkofidentityinterrogation.
2. Straight
investment.
As members oftheprivileged orientation

class,straights
havea distinc-
tiveinterest
inmaintaining theiridentity.Thatidentity mustbe assuredat
boththeindividualandatthecollective levels.
Attheindividuallevel,bisexuality
threatensheterosexualsinthemanner
describedabove,bymaking itimpossibleforthemdefinitivelytoprovetheir
heterosexuality.
Theinvestment in stabilizing
theirorientations
attheindi-
viduallevelleadsself-identifiedstraights
to takedifferent stancestoward
homosexuals and bisexuals. Ironically, the investment in heterosexual
privilege
canleadstraights
toincrease thevisibility
ofhomosexuals. Priorto
theintroduction
oftheconcept ofhomosexuality,no suchincentive existed,
as theconceptofheterosexualitywasso universal as tobe itself
invisible.264
Sincetheintroductionoftheconcept ofhomosexuality,265 however,hetero-
sexuality's hasbeenpredicated
stability on opposition tohomosexuality,as
262. Mary McIntosh,The Homosexual Role, in FORMS OF DESIRE: SEXUAL ORIENTATION

AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST CONTROVERSY 25, 28 (Edward Steined., 1990).
263. Ochs, supra note63, at 232.
264. See JOHN D'EMILIO, SEXUAL POLITICS, SEXUAL COMMUNITIES: THE MAKING OF A
HOMOSEXUALMINORITYIN THE UNITED STATES 1940-70,at 10 (1983) (notingthatin colonial
America,where "the existenceof lesbiansand gay men was inconceivable," the term
remained
"'[h]eterosexuality' undefined,sinceitwas literally
theonlywayoflife");GARBER, su-
pra note11,at 40 (assertingthat"[b]eforepeoplebeganto speakof 'homosexuals'as a kindof
person,a socialspecies,therewasno needfora termlike'heterosexual"').
Thefactthattheterm
heterosexuality
is a conceptualbackformation fromthetermhomosexualityis reflected
linguisti-
callyin thefactthattheword"heterosexual" post-datedtheword"homosexual."See GARBER,
supranote11, at 40; DAVID M. HALPERIN,ONE HUNDREDYEARS OF HOMOSEXUALITY155 n.1
(1989).
265. See, e.g., 1 FOUCAULT, supra note95, at 42-43 (datingcreationof conceptofthehomo-
sexualtothelatenineteenth century).

"thedenotation
ofanyterm is alwaysdependentonwhatis exterior
to it."266
inturn
Thatopposition is onlypossibleifhomosexuals
arevisibleenough to
be distinguished
away. Thus,evenattempts to exorcisehomosexuality be-
yondthepale ofdiscoursedo so onlybynamingit.267It is in thissensethat
D.A. Millerclaimsthatheterosexuals need"homosexuals.268
"unabashedly
Whilestraights needgays,theydo notneedbisexuals.To thecontrary,
theverysystem in whichstraights needhomosexuals is undergirdedbybi-
sexualnonexistence. Thisis becausestraights needgaystoexorcise thepos-
sibilityofsame-sex desirefrom themselves. Butthisexorcism canonlyoc-
curina worldwhere bisexualsdonotexist.
Two linkedobjections might be raised. The firstis thatmosthetero-
sexualsactually do notspendmuchtimeworrying aboutwhether theyare
straight. Likewhiteness intheracecontext,269 heterosexualityintheorien-
tationcontext is sufficientlyprivileged as to achievea kindof transpar-
ency.270 It might thusbe contended thatstraights
cannotbe repressing bi-
sexuality outofanyneedto provetheirstraightness sincetheydo notfeel
thisneed. Thiscontention, however, has grownharderto make,as the
greater visibilityof sexualminorities (indicatively
gays)has somewhat de-
naturalized heterosexuality.Moreto thepoint,thefactthatstraights can
leavetheirsexualorientations undertheorized shoulditself be seenas a pre-
ciousentitlement.271 Evenstraights whodo notfeelas iftheymustprove
theirsexualorientation mayhavean interest in nothavingto thinkabout
theirsexualorientation. Andbisexuality, morethanhomosexuality, requires
themtodoprecisely this.
A related objectionis that,as a practical
matter,we assessorientationby
gestaltintuitionsrather thanbyanalytic proof.A womanmight notbe able
to "prove"thatherhusband is straight,
butshemaybelieveshecan com-
fortably inferthisfrom anynumber ofsmallgestures hemakestowards her
andother womenandmen.Andifno analytic proofis required,
itarguably
doesnotmatter thatno suchproofexists.Butthisis debatable-being told
thatthereis no logicalwayto proveone is straight couldplausibly affect
266. Diana Fuss, Inside/Out,in INSIDE/OUT:LESBIANTHEORIES,GAY THEORIES1, 1 (Diana
Fussed.,1991).
267. "Don'task,don'ttell"is a goodinstance
ofthisdynamicas itmakeshomosexuality un-
speakable
bynaming itforthefirsttimeintheUnitedStatesCode. See 10U.S.C. ? 654(1994).
268. D.A. Miller,Anal Rape, in INSIDE/OUT:LESBIANTHEORIES,GAY THEORIES,supra note
266,at 135.
269. See BarbaraJ.Flagg,"WasBlind,ButNowI See": White Race Consciousness and the
Requirement ofDiscriminatory 91 MICH.L. REv.953,957 (1993). As Flaggnotes:"The
Intent,
moststrikingcharacteristic
ofwhites'consciousnessofwhiteness
is thatmostofthetimewe don't
haveany. I call thisthetransparencyphenomenon: thetendencyof whitesnotto thinkabout
whiteness,
oraboutnorms, behaviors,
experiences,
orperspectives
thatarewhite-specific." Id.
270. See,e.g.,JANISBOHAN,PSYCHOLOGYANDSEXUALORIENTATION 31-34 (1996).
271. See EVE KOSOFSKYSEDGWICK, Privilegeof Unknowing: Diderot's The Nun, in
TENDENCIES 23,23 (1993)(discussing
this"privilege
ofunknowing").

evenone'sinformal orientation
ascriptions. Indeed,thepopular press,when
linkingbisexualitywithAIDS, oftensought toaffectorientation ascriptions
in exactlythisway,suggesting thatwomencouldnotknowforcertain that
theirhusbands werestraight.272Moreover, something closertotherigorous
form ofproof mayberequired inspecialized contexts.As I willshow,273this
includesthelegalrealm,a context inwhichorientation determinations have
someoftheir mostseriousconsequences.
Bisexuality theintegrity
challenges ofheterosexualityatthecollectiveas
well as at theindividuallevel. Individual wishto stabilizethe
straights
straight/gaybinarybecausetheywishto locatethemselves as belongingto
theheterosexual group.Whatmembership inthatgroupmeans,however, is
determined at thecollective
rather thanat theindividual level. As Naomi
Mezeyhasargued, straights
collectively
attempt topreserve a "heterosexual
that
ethic," is, an that
ethic has the
heterosexuality monopoly on sexualvir-
tue.274In orderfortheheterosexual ethictopresentitself
as congruent with
virtue,however, thehomosexual ethicmustbe presented as congruent with
vice.275Thesurvival oftheheterosexualethicis thusdependent on a binary
worldviewof"right andwrong, ofhealth andsickness, ofheterosexual and
homosexual."276
Mezeydescribes themartialrhetoric
ofhomophobia as arisingoutofthis
dependence.277 Shethenastutelynotesthattherealenemy totheheterosex-
ual ethicis notthenamedenemy ofhomosexuality, buttheunnamed enemy
ofbisexuality.278By deconstructingthestraight/gay
binary, bisexuality
re-
vealsthatitcannot be isomorphicwiththevirtue/vice
binary.Itthusthreat-
enstheheterosexual ethicatthecollective
levelas wellas threateninghet-
erosexual attheindividual
identity level.
3. Gay investment.
Gays,as well as straights,

havedistinctive
investmentsin stabilizing
theirsexualorientation.
Again,their
interest
insuchstabilization
is lessin-
I
tuitive. earliernotedthatgays,likestraights,
havea genericinterest in
simply "knowing place"inthesocialorder,
their evenifthatplaceis a stig-
matized one. Butgaysalsohaveinterests
inidentity
stabilization
thatarise
272. See,e.g.,RichardA. Knox,BisexualsPut Women at RiskStudiesSay,BOSTONGLOBE,

June20, 1990,at 57 (describing ofknowing
difficulty whether a "straight"
manis actually
bisex-
ual);JonNordheimer, AIDS SpecterforWomen:TheBisexualMan,N.Y. TIMES,Apr.3, 1987,at 1
(similar).
274. Mezey,supranote8,at 112-21.
275. See id.at 116.
276. Id. atllS.
277. See id.
278. See id.

notin spiteof,butbecauseof,theirstigmatized status.Insofar as thesein-

vestments are relatedto stigma, theywill be heldby gaysbutnotby
straights.
Theseinterests mayalsobe broken intoindividualan'dcollective
interests.
Theindividual gayinterest inidentitystabilization
arisesoutofa desire
to retain
theimmutability defense.Gaysoftendefend theirhomosexuality
by characterizingit as an immutable trait.279 Thisdefensecan sometimes
mitigatethestigma associated withhomosexuality, bothin theeyesofoth-
ers280andin theeyesofgaysthemselves.281 Immutabilityhas exonerative
forcebecauseofthewidelyheldbeliefthatitis abhorrent topenalizeindi-
vidualsformatters beyond theircontrol.282
Thatbeliefhasfound widespread
expressioninAmerican anti-discrimination
jurisprudence.283
Bisexualsthreaten theimmutability defense.Thereasoning hereis not
immediately obvious.Formally, bisexualityandimmutability arenotneces-
sarilyinconsistent.Therecould,afterall,be fourimmutable categories-
immutable heterosexuality,immutable homosexuality, immutable bisexual-
ity,andimmutable asexuality.284 Indeed,there mightbe an infinite number
ofcategories on(andoff)thesex-of-object choicespectrum, all ofwhichare
immutable.
Butas a practical matter,theintroduction ofbisexualscomplicates the
immutability defense through a two-stepprocess.First,oncethebisexual
is introduced,
possibility itbecomesimpossible fortheself-identifiedgayto
proveheis gay,inprecisely thesamewayitbecomes impossible fortheself-
identified toprovehe is straight.285
straight Evenassumingdiscreteimmuta-
blecategories,
itwillbeunclearwhethertheindividual
manifesting
same-sex
desirewhosayshe is immutablygayis immutablygay,orwhetherhe is in
truth
immutably bisexual.Second,totheextent
thatan individual
is immu-
279. See Janet E. Halley,SexualOrientationandthePoliticsofBiology:A Critique oftheAr-

gumentfrom Immutability, 46 STAN.L. REv.503,507(1994)[hereinafter Halley,Biology].
280. See id. at 567 (notingpotency of immutability argument to persuadenon-gays of the
humanity ofgays);see also id. at 518 n.62(citingstudiesshowingthatpeoplewhothink homo-
sexualityis immutable aremorelikelytodisapprove ofdiscnrmination against homosexuals).
281. See id. at 535 (describing researcher's
elationat discovering an allegedbiologicalbasis
forhomosexuality, becausetheresearcher had"'alwaysfeltthat[he]wasborngay"').
282. See,e.g.,ESSAYSIN MORALRESPONSIBILITY (JohnM. Fischered.,1986)(collecting es-
saysdescribing relationshipbetween moralresponsibility andfreewill).
283. See,e.g.,Frontiero v. Richardson,411 U.S. 677,686 (1973) (pluralityopinion)(quoting
Weberv. AetnaCas. & Sur.Co.,406 U.S. 164,175(1972))(noting thatlegallyburdeningimmuta-
ble characteristicsviolates"thebasicconceptof oursystem thatlegalburdens shouldbearsome
relationshipto individualresponsibility").TheSupreme Courthascalledthisrelianceon immuta-
bilityintoquestion insubsequent dictum.See Cityof Cleburne v. Cleburne LivingCtr.,473 U.S.
432,442-43n.10(1985).
284. Cf WEINBERGET AL.,supranote113,at4 (asking"[i]fhomosexuality andheterosexu-
alityaregenetically predetermined, doesthatmeanweneedtolookfora bisexualgeneas well?").

willgenerally
tablybisexual,his immutability notworkto exonerate him.
This is becauseimmutability offersabsolution by implying a lack of
choice.286Butevenanimmutable bisexualis perceived tohavea choice-he
canchooseto fitintotheheterosexual matrix byselecting a partner ofthe
oppositesex.287The gayinvestment in bisexualerasure maythusarisein
partbecauseitproblematizestheimmutability defense.
Suchan investment couldbe challenged on normative grounds, as im-
mutabilityhasthevicesofitsvirtues.Thevirtue oftheimmutability defense
thequestion
is thatitforecloses ofvalidity.288In so doing,however, itcon-
stantly thenormative
defers debatethatcouldestablish theidentity'svalid-
ity.289Indeed,avid useoftheimmutabilityargument may be read as an im-
plicitconcessionof theidentity'sinvalidity-for if an identityweretruly
perceived tobe valid,manywouldnotaskifit was immutable.290 Justas
immutabilitymootsthequestion ofvalidity, so toodoesvalidity mootthe
question ofimmutability.
As thegayrights movement progresses, sometheorists areprivileging
thevalidityargument overtheimmutabilityargument, contendingthatbeing
gayis validregardlessofwhetheritis chosen.291 Thismayinpartbe fueled
286. See Halley,Biology, supranote279,at 518-19(noting thatimmutability operates as an

exoneration strategybecauseiteliminates choice).
287. See id. at 528 (noting thattheimmutability theory "doesnotexplainwhybisexuals-by
hypothesis capableof satisfactory sexualencounters withmembers of theso-called'opposite'
sex-shouldnotbe encouraged or forcedtodo so"). To be sure,one couldsaythathomosexuals
also havethischoice. Buta socialdistinction appearsto be drawnbetweenthebisexualandthe
homosexual basedon theperceived sacrificeeachmustmaketo chooseto liveas a heterosexual.
Theimmutable bisexual,unliketheimmutable homosexual, is notgivingup all sexualpleasurein
conforming toheterosexual norms ofconduct, butmerely givingupsexualpleasurewithoneoftwo
sexes. See notes90-91supraandaccompanying text.
A similar kindoflogiccanbe seeninjudicialtreatments ofbilingualindividuals.In Garciav.
Gloor,618 F.2d264 (5thCir.1980),forexample, theFifthCircuitconsidered a TitleVII employ-
mentdiscrimination claimbrought by a bilingualMexican-American employeeto challengehis
former employer's prohibition onspeaking Spanishon thejob. Thecourtnotedthat"[t]oa person
who speaksonlyone tongue... languagemightwell be an immutable characteristiclike skin
color." Id. at 270. It thenwenton to note,however, that"thelanguagea personwhois multi-
lingualelectstospeakata particular timeis bydefinition ofchoice."Id. (emphasis
a matter added).
Thus,thecourtreasoned thatwhilepeoplewhodo notpossessa favored traitmaybe protected on
grounds ofimmutability, peoplewhopossessbotha favored anda disfavored traitwillneverbe so
protected,becausetheymayalwayschoosetomanifest onlythefavored trait.
288. See VERAWHISMAN,QUEERBY CHOICE 11-13(1996).
289. See id. at 6 ("Ifwe argueagainstonlythe'possibleto change'assertion, we leaveun-
challenged themoreinsidious assumption ornecessary
thatitis desirable todo so. Andto theex-
tentthathomosexuality is acceptableonlyif it is notchosenit remainsstigmatized, illegitimate,
deviant.").
290. Cf.BERSANI, supranote232, at 57 ("[T]heveryquestionof 'how we gotthatway'
wouldin manyquarters notbe askedifitwerenotassumedthatwe endedup thewrongway,the
purposebehindthequestion hasgenerally beento learnhowwe might bestgo backandright the
wrong.").
291. See WHISMAN, supranote288,at30-32.

bythefactthattheimmutability defense is notavailableforgayswhodonot

experiencetheir orientationas immutable.292 (As conventionally told,lesbi-
ansaremorelikelythangaymento fallintothisgroupbecauseoflesbian-
ism'snexusto feminism.)293 To theextent thattheimmutability strategyit
threatensbecomeslessimportant, bisexual visibilitywill become more palat-
able. Indeed,thosewishing tohasten themovefrom immutability arguments
tovalidityarguments mightembrace bisexualvisibility. Thisis becausebi-
sexuals,incontrast tohomosexuals orheterosexuals, willalwaysbe seenas
havinga choice.294 As such,theyliterally embody thefactthatindividuals
might choose(andchoosetoacknowledge) same-sex sexuality.
As a positive matter,however, thedaywhengays(orat leastgaymen)
renouncethe immutability defenseappearsdistant. Even commentary
deeplycritical oftheuse ofimmutability in thecourts recognizes thatim-
mutabilityremains a potentargument inthepolitical forum.295 Theimmuta-
bilityargument is oftentheonlyeffective strategy forgays"seeking toper-
suadetheir parents, coworkers, andneighbors thattheycanlovesomeone of
thesamesex andremainfullyhuman."296 Continued gayrelianceon the
immutabilityargument mayleadto continued gayrelianceonbisexualera-
sure.
Theother gayinterest instabilizing gayidentity is a collective
interest
in
effectivepoliticalmobilization. Even(orperhaps especially) gayswhobe-
lievethatall individuals are somewhat bisexualmayfeelthatbisexuals
shouldnonetheless allythemselves withgaysin orderto combat homopho-
bia. Thisis in partbecausebisexualsareseenas flight risks-individuals
whocouldat anytimeabandon thegaycommunity toleadstraight lives.297
Andeveniftheydo notactually leave,bisexuals maybe seenas lesscom-
mitted tofighting heterosexual privilegebecauseoftheir abilitytopartakeof
292. See Halley,Biology, supranote279,at520.

293. See RUST,CHALLENGE,supranote71,at 163(noting thatsomefeministssee a connec-
tionbetweenlesbianism and feminism, relying on theassumption that"lesbianismis a possible
choiceforall women").
294. Whether thisis actually
thecase is opentoquestion.In theWeinberg study, a groupof
bisexualswereasked:"Is itpossiblethatsomeday youcouldbehaveeither exclusively
homosexual
orexclusively heterosexual?"WEINBERGET AL.,supranote113,at 33. Approximately eighteen
percentofbisexualssaid"no." Id. at app.A at 317 tbl.3.2. Thisdoesnotnecessarily, butmight,
reflect
thefactthatsomebisexualsdo notexperience themselves as beingabletorestrict
themselves
toonesex,suchthattheydo notexperience themselves as havinga "choice"betweensexes. An-
otherwayofputting thisis thatsomebisexualsmayactually fitthestereotypical
viewofbisexuals
whichholdsthatbisexualsfeelintrinsicallyincomplete insexualrelationswithonlyonesex.
295. See Halley,Biology, supranote279,at 567-68(criticizing relianceon immutabilityin
legalcontext,butnotinextra-legal political
context).
296. Id. at567.
297. See Ochs,supranote63, at 228-29(noting that"[m]anylesbiansandgaymenbelieve
thatbisexuals have less commitment
to 'the community,'and thatwhatevera lesbian or gay man
might havetooffertotheir[sic]bisexualpartnerwillnotbe enoughtooutweigh
theexternal
bene-
fitsoffered
tothosewhoareinheterosexual relationships").

it. Moreover, evenifbisexualsappearto be deeplycommitted to fighting

heterosexism,theycanbe seenas inherently insofar
traitorous, as solidarity
requiresnotjustsupporting a groupbutalso fighting(as opposedto con-
sorting
with)thegroup'senemies.298
Thisinterestin bisexualerasure
is thusan interest
in ensuringthatthe
lineofbattleis clearlydrawn.Theconflict between sexualminorities and
thosewhooppress themis framed as isomorphicwiththeconflict between
gays and straights, thus makingthe battleline the virgulein the
"straight/gay"
binary.299 becausegaysviewthemselves
Precisely as a belea-
gueredminority, theirtolerance
forthosewhomight saptheir soli-
political
darity thatbattlelineis limited.300
byblurring
Thisinterestmaybe morepowerful forlesbians thanforgaymen. This
mayseemcounterintuitive, as I earlierimpliedthatbecauselesbiansmay
havelessinvested intheimmutability defense thangaymen,bisexuals might
notbe as threateningtothem alongtheaxisofimmutability.301 Butitmaybe
exactlybecauselesbians aremorelikely toviewtheir as fluidthat
orientation
bisexuals maybe moredeeplythreatening tolesbians ontheaxisofpolitical
mobilization. If biologyis believednotto providea substrate forlesbian
identity,thenthefearthatanygivenlesbianmightbecomebisexualand
thereby abandon thelesbiancommunity loomslarger.302
Liketheinvestment inimmutability, thisinvestment inpolitical
stability
canbe challenged.Destabilization actuallyhas fourpro-gay deployments,
whichI speculatively orderherefrom leasttomostradical.First, thebisex-
ual possibility
suggests thatthestraight category is notas monolithicorse-
cureas itmayoriginally seem. To theextent thatbisexualsare waverers,
gaysshouldcourt, ratherthansuppress,bisexuals whoarelivingas straights.
Thisis especiallytrueifweaccepttheresults ofthesexuality studiesconsid-
eredabove,303 whichindicate thattheaddition of bisexualscouldsignifi-
cantlyswelltheranksofhomosexuals. Second,gayscoulddeploybisexual-
ity'stendency to destabilizeheterosexuality to enliststraights
in thefight
298. See id.at230 (describing lesbianhostility

tobisexuals,andnotingthatpartoftheobjec-
tionwas thatsomelesbians"'believedthatonlylesbianshad an antipatriarchal sexuality,
which
meantthatonlylesbianswereworking againstsexism.. . [and]conflated
sexualpractice
andpoliti-
cal actionandbelievedthatwhatonedidinbed,andwithwhom,haddirectconsequences forsup-
porting ordismantling a patriarchal
powerstructure"'(citationomitted)).
299. See Mezey,supranote8, at 115(noting that"ina discourseofmilitanthetero-
andho-
mosexuality thedivisions areclear;oneknowswhotheenemyis andhenceoneknowsoneself").
300. See id. at 118(notingthat"[a]s an oppressed homosexual
subculture, communities rely
on an ethicof homosexual identityto maintain strength and coherenceagainsttheconstanton-
slaughtofvirulent [homophobic] attacks").
302. Another wayinwhichlesbiansmaybe morethreatened bybisexualson theaxisofpo-
liticalmobilizationconcerns theinterestlesbianshavein combatting patriarchy.I considerthis
interest
below.See notes345-352infraandaccompanying text.

against theregulation ofhomoerotic conduct.Straights maybe lesslikelyto

burden suchminorities iftheyareworried aboutdrifting intothestigmatized
category themselves.304 Third, bisexuals couldbe seenas performing a me-
diating orconciliatory office.Ifbisexuals arebeingerasedin ordertopre-
servethebinary logicof agonistic conflict,it seemsintuitive thatbisexual
visibilitymight challenge theparadigm ofconflict itself.305Finally,bisexu-
als couldbe deployed notjustas a third party alongside gaysandstraights,
butas a category thatpermits gaystochallenge anysexualorientation cate-
gorization. Something akintothisinsight is neatly captured inthebisexual
retort tobeingcalleda fencesitter-namely, "yourfenceis sitting onme."306
In thisformulation, itis notfencesitting, butthefence,thatis theproblem;
anditis notbisexuality, butthelineestablishing binary categorization,that
needstobe erased.
Thelastpossibilitymerits further discussion.A utopian versionofthe
argument wouldusebisexuality as a meansofretiring all sexualorientation
Theargument
classifications.307 thattheprevailing orientation classifications
shouldbe retired shouldbe a familiar onetogays,as itis an argument they
espousedevenbefore thepatterned visibilityofbisexuality.308 Atthebegin-
ningofthe1970s,gayliberationists "prophesied thedisappearance ofboth
'thehomosexual' and'theheterosexual' through theabolition ofconstraining
categories."309 One theory ofwhythismovement toretire categories ulti-
mately didnotreachfruition is thatitwasdifficult tocreatea politics outof
werefacedwiththeperennial
it.310 Activists problem-how doesoneresist
a categorization
withoutorganizing
aroundtheoppressedcategory?3
1 And
304. Cf JOHNHARTELY, DEMOCRACYANDDISTRUST160(1980)(describing age as a cate-

goryon whichdiscrimination is less likelyto occurbecauseindividuals
understandthattheywill
"drift"
intothestigmatizedcategory ofoldage).
305. See Highleyman, supranote12,at 90 (noting that"[m]anybisexualsobjectinprinciple
tothegayandlesbianmovement's 'us' versus'them'paradigm").
306. RebeccaKaplan,YourFenceIs Sitting on Me: TheHazardsof BinaryThinking, in
BISEXUALPOLITICS,supranote7, at267,267.
307. See Mezey,supranote8,at99.
308. See AmandaUdis-Kessler, A Historyof theBise-xual
Identity/Politics: Movement, in
BISEXUALPOLITICS,supranote7, at 17, 19 (notingthat"[t]heword'bisexual'existedbefore
andtherewerepeoplewholivedas bisexuals,
Stonewall, evenfamousonesat times"butthat"the
focusonbisexuality
as a coreaspectofone'sidentity doesnotseemtohaveariseninanypatterned
wayuntilafterStonewall").
309. StevenEpstein,GayPolitics,EthnicIdentity: TheLimitsofSocial Constructionism, in
FORMS OF DESIRE: SEXUALORIENTATION
AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST
CONTROVERSY
239,252 (EdwardSteined., 1990). According to Epstein,
thispost-Stonewallactivism was a de-
parturefromhomosexual politicsin thepreceding decades,whichstressed thegoal of integration
withoutchallenging thestraight/gay dichotomy. See id.
310. See id.at253-54.
311. See id. at 254 ("Thisis a familiardilemma, andone thatis byno meanspeculiarto the
gaymovement: Howdo youprotest a sociallyimposedcategorization,
exceptbyorganizing around
thecategory?Justas blackscannotfight thearbitrariness
ofracialclassification
without organizing

howcanoneorganize around thecategorywithout reifyingtheverycatego-

rizationoneseekstoretire?
It is worth revisitingthesequestions,as bisexuality providesan ingen-
iousanswerto them.Thisis becausebisexuality maybe "notjustanother
sexualorientation but[also]a sexuality thatundoessexualorientation as a
category."312Oneparadox is answered byanother-the generalparadoxthat
one can onlychallenge a classification
through classesthatreifyit is an-
swered bythespecific paradox thatbisexuality
is a classthatchallengesthe
veryclassification thatcreatesit. Preciselybecausebisexuality no sooner
assertsitself
as a categorythanitquestions itsownboundaries, is
bisexuality
arguably thepost-Stonewall activist's
dream.313
Again,however, thesenormative objectionsmaynotswaymanygays
whoholdthisparticular investment inbisexualerasure.Gaysfacesignifi-
cantpoliticaloppression undertheprevailing straight/gayparadigm.Given
this,manygaysfeelthattheenergies ofthemovement shouldbe devoted to
arguing within,rather thanagainst, thatparadigm.Thisis particularly true
sincegayshaveusedthatparadigm tocreatean effectivepolitics
ofopposi-
tion.
B. Bisexuality
DestabilizesthePrimacyofSex
Thesecondinvestment straights
andgayshaveinbisexualerasure is that
bisexualsare seento destabilizetheprimacy of sex as a diacritical
axis.
andgayshavea sharedinvestment
Straights in theprimacy ofsexbecause
theirorientation
identities
relyonit. Straights
havea peculiar investmentin
theprimacy of sex becausesex identitiesare currently determinedby a
straight
matrix. Andgayshavea peculiarinvestment becausehomosexuality
is sometimes
deployed as a meansofsexseparatism, whichbothreflects and
reinforces
theprimacy ofsex.
as blacks,so gayscouldnotadvocatetheoverthrow ofthesexualorderwithout makingtheirgay-

nesstheverybasisoftheir claims.").
312. GARBER supranote11,at65; see also Mezey,supranote8, at99 ("Bisexuality as a cri-
tiqueof thehetero/homo paradigm actuallyfacilitates
[a] moreradicalanalysis, whichconcludes,
ironically,
thatbisexualityworksno better thantheothertwocategories in accuratelydescribing
concretesexualbehavior, andthata newconceptualization ofsexualidentities, suchas one based
onacts,is needed.").
313. Oris it? Onecouldcontend thattheconundrum is notso easilysolved,forbisexuality's
instability,
whichprevents it fromreifyingthecategorization,also arguably makesit a politically
ineffectivecategory.Underthisview,bisexuality offerstheworstratherthanthebestof both
worlds,beingtooinchoate tobe an effectiveclassandtoorigidtruly to contest thereificationof
orientation
categories.

Bisexualitydisruptstheprimacy ofsexas a diacriticaltrait.Onedisqui-

etingaspectofthebisexualis thatsherefuses torequire thatan objectofde-
sirebelongtoa particular sex. In thestereotypicalview,thisis becausethe
bisexualis sex-blind,314 refusing to distinguishat all betweenmenand
womeninhererotic Underthischaracterization,
life.315 theworldthebisex-
ual seesis likeFoucault's"worldin whichgrinsh[a]ngaboutwithout the
cat."316 In thisworld,sexualpleasure becomesa (literally)
floatingsignifier,
a sexlesssmileleftbya fading body.
Thestereotypicalviewappears tomisdescribe themajority ofbisexuals.
Somebisexuals claimtobe sex-blind inthesensethattheyfallinlovewitha
personrather thanwitha sex.317 Butmostappeartodesiremenas menand
todesirewomenas women.ThusintheWeinberg study,overfour-fifthsof
thebisexuals intervieweddistinguished between beingsexualwitha manand
beingsexualwitha woman, citing behavioral,bodily,andemotional differ-
ences.318 Thatfinding comports withcommon sense-sexdistinctions areso
in
pervasive contemporary American societythatit is hardto believethat
bisexuals couldevadesuchdistinctions.
314. By "sex-blind," I meanthata persondoesnottakesex intoaccountin choosingerotic

partners.FollowingNeil Gotanda'sanalysisof colorblindness, I distinguishbetweenliteraland
figurativeforms of sex-blindness.
See Neil Gotaida,A Critiqueof "OurConstitution Is Color-
Blind,"44 STAN.L. REv. 1, 18-19(1991). The literalformpositsthatthepersondoesnoteven
registerotherpeople'ssexes. Literalsex-blindness is likemedicalcolor-blindness-just as the
personwhohasred-green colorblindnesscannottellthedifference between thetwocolors,so too
does thepersonwhohas literalsex-blindness findit impossible to tellthedifferencebetweenthe
sexes. Cf id. Thefigurativeform,incontrast,notesthatthepersonregisters otherpeople'ssexes,
butattaches no consequence to thatperception.Figurative sex-blindness is likejuridicalcolor-
blindness.Justas thosewhoespousethecolorblindness idealsaythattheyrecognize in
differences
colorsbutattachnosaliencetothosedifferences,so toodo thoseespousing figurativesex-blindness
saythattheyrecognize differences
between sexesbutattach no saliencetothosedifferences. In my
reviewof theliteratureon bisexuality,
I havenotcomeacrossanyinstances of individuals
who
claim thattheyare literally sex-blind. By "sex-blindness" I therefore mean figurative sex-
blindness.
315. Thisis theviewthatunderlies thefearssurrounding the"bisexualharassment exemp-
tion"discussedbelow.See notes464-474infraandaccompanying text.
316. Michel Foucault, Introductionto HERCULINE BARBIN, BEING THE RECENTLY
DISCOVEREDMEMOIRSOF A NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRENCHHERMAPHRODITE vii, xiii (Michel
Foucaulted.,Richard
McDougalltrans.,1980). Foucaultdescribes
thisworldas theworldseenby
thehermaphrodite,
butitseemsmoreaptlythe(stereotypical)
viewofthebisexual'sworld.
317. See COLKER, HYBRID,supranote9, at 27 (describing
bisexualswhostate"'thatwhen
theyfellinloveitwaswitha personrather
thana gender"')(quotingBETTYFAIRCHILD& NANCY
HAYWARD,NoW THAT You KNOW: WHAT EVERY PARENTSHOULD KNow ABOUT HOMO-
SEXUALITY
75 (1989));PaulaC. Rust,WhoAreWeand Where
Do WeGofromHere?Conceptual-
izingBisexuality,in CLOSERTO HOME: BISEXUALITY& FEMINISM281, 298 (ElizabethReba Weise
ed., 1992) (describingattitudesof lesbian women towardbisexualityrangingfrom"bisexuals are
indiscriminate"to "bisexualsfallin love witha person,nota gender").
318. See WEINBERGET AL.,supra note 113,at 50-53.

Despitethefactthat"sex-blind"bisexualsmaycomprise onlya small

minorityofallbisexuals, still a
bisexuality presentsdeep threattosexnorms.
Evenifbisexualsarenotcompletely sex-blind,theystilldo notpresump-
tively
eliminateonesexfrom their
fieldsoferotic Forallbisexu-
possibility.
als,whethersex-blindornot,sexmattersless.319
Whyis a challengetothepriority
ofsexso threatening tomonosexuals?
Thereappeartobe twoanswers-challenging theprimacyofsexdestabilizes
monosexual identityandunderscoresa tension between publicandprivate
attitudes
towardsex.
a. Destabilization.
Challenging theprimacyofsexdestabilizes notonlymonosexual iden-

tity,buthuman identity.
JudithButlerpositsthatincontemporary American
culture,wearenotviewedas human untilwehavea sex,that"themoment in
whichan infant becomeshumanized is whenthequestion, 'is it a boyor
girl?'is answered."320 Thus,"[t]hosebodilyfigures whodo notfitintoei-
thergender falloutside
thehuman, indeed, constitute
thedomainofthede-
humanized andtheabjectagainstwhichthehumanitselfis constituted."321
SuzanneKessler'sstudyof theintersexed corroboratesButler'sclaim.322
Kesslerdescribes howthemedical professionpreservestheexisting binaryat
all coststhrough surgical
"reconstruction"shortly
afterthebirthoftheinter-
sexual323-literally doctoring
thedatatofitthebinary sexhypothesis. Even
insituations wheretheintersexed infantis healthy,324
thesurgery is castas a
"neonatal psychosexual medicalemergency,"325 supportingtheclaimthatthe
infant'sstatus as a humanbeingis endangered bythemerefactofintersexu-
alityitself.In sucha culture,
nottopossessa sexis nottobe human.
319. MarorieGarber recountsthestory ofa woman, "Elizabeth,"whofellinlovewithsome-

oneon theinternet whowaspurported tobe a man. See GARBER, supranote11, at 33-34.When
theyfinally metandthe"man"revealedherself tobe a woman,Elizabeth overcame herinitialre-
sistanceoverthecourseofthehour'sconversation andthenmadelovetoher.See id. at34. Garber
notesthatElizabethdoesnotself-identity as a bisexual,id.,andshecertainly wouldnotseemto
qualifyas a "sex-blind"bisexual.Yetinherrefusal topermit sexofobjectchoicetobe "theover-
ridingconsideration,"id.,sheperhapsrepresentstheanxiety ofthebisexualpossibility.
320. BUTLER,supranote24,at 111. Linguistic support forthisclaimcanbe foundinthefact
thattheinfant whois nota "he" or a "she"mustbe an "it,"a pronoun reservedfornonhuman
subjects.
321. Id.
322. See generallyKESSLER,supranote18.
323. See id.at 12-32.
324. Kesslerdistinguishesbetween threekindsofgenitalsurgery-(1)thatwhichis lifesav-
ing;(2) thatwhichimproves thequalityoflife;and(3) thatwhichis aesthetic.See id. at 34. By
"healthy"I meana childwhodoesnotrequire thefirst
twokindsofsurgery.
325. Id.

Butifthisis true,doesbisexuality, whichstereotypicallydoesnotpass

desirethroughthelensofsex,threaten human identity? Muchmorewould
needtobe saidbefore answering intheaffirmative. Evenwithout thatdis-
cussion,however, it canbe notedthatbisexuality, likeintersexuality,sug-
geststhatthequestion "Is it a boyor a girl?"is thewrongquestion to be
asking.Andifthisis thequestion thatdetermines ourhumanity, it should
comeas no surprise thatthecapacity ofbisexualstoundermine thesexcate-
goryis deeplythreatening toindividuals ofallcategories.326
Butwhilethebisexual'sability to undermine sex categoriesis generi-
callytroublingforall individuals in contemporary American society, it is
arguablydistinctivelytroubling formonosexuals. Thisis becausemonosex-
uals,unlikebisexuals, definetheirorientation identities
according to that
distinction-that
is,bytheir attractiontomenbutnotwomen, orviceversa.
Anindividual'sorientation canbe affected notonlybychallenging thefixity
ofhisorientation,butalsobychallenging thefixityofthesexofhisobject
choice. Without a clearand privileged distinctionbetween"man"and
"woman," there
is no clearandprivileged distinction
between"straight" and
"gay."In theprevious analysis, we sawthatbisexuality directlychallenged
sexualorientationcategories bydestabilizing them.327 Herewe see thatbi-
sexuality
indirectlychallenges sexualorientation
bydestabilizingsex.
b. Thetensionbetween
publicandprivatetreatments
ofsex.
Thereis a secondreasonwhymonosexuals mightbepeculiarly

disturbed
bytheability ofbisexuals tocalltheprimacy ofsexintoquestion.Thisre-
latestoa tensioninhowsexis treated intheerotic andnonerotic
realms.It
is notquitetrue,as I saidbefore,thatitis alwaysthreatening
tosuggest that
the"Is ita boyora girl?"question is thewrong question.In thenonerotic
realm,thisquestion is widelymarked as immoral. Thus,Americanantidis-
criminationlawprohibits thestateandmanyemployers fromattachingcon-
sequence totheanswer tothisquestion.328To someextentthesenorms carry
overintothenondesirous private
realm-those whodiscriminate
onthebasis
ofsexintheir private affiliations
areincreasingly subjected
tomoral,ifnot
legal,censure.329Butwhenwe entertheeroticrealm,thenormsshift dra-
326. Thatbisexualsmayalsobe threatened bybisexuality's capacitytounderminesexcatego-

riesmaybe seenintheinsistenceofmanybisexuals, as notedabove,thattheyareattracted tomen
as menandwomenas women.See note318supraandaccompanying text.
328. See generallyCASES AND MATERIALSON SEX-BASEDDISCRIMINATION(HermaHill
Kay& Martha S. Westeds.,4thed. 1996).
329. See, e.g.,HarvardWoman Sues Male 'Flies,' S.F. CHRON.,Mar.3, 1988,at B6 (de-
scribing
legalchallengetoall-malestudent clubs);AndreaEstes& ErinN. O'Leary,JudgeOrders
ClubtoPut Women onPar withMen,BOSTONHERALD,Dec. 2, 1998,at4 (describing courtorder
mandatingsex integration
of tournaments at Massachusetts golfclub); PatriciaWen,Single-Sex

matically in theotherdirection, suchthatsexdistinctions arenotonlyper-

mitted,butexpected. Monosexuals routinely discriminateonthebasisofsex
in choosing theireroticpartners; indeed,thatpractice constitutes themas
monosexuals.
Thereis thusa fundamental tension inthetreatment ofsexinthenonde-
sirousanddesirous realms.IfI discriminate between maleandfemaleem-
ployeesintheworkplace, I canexpectinmanyquarters tobe criticized for
political ButifI discriminate
insensitivity. between maleandfemalepart-
nersinmyeroticattachments, I ammuchlesslikelytoencounter suchcriti-
cism. Indeed,totheextent thatI discriminate infavorofa same-sex erotic
partner,itis mycritic whocanexpect(insomequarters) tobe criticized for
political
insensitivity.
Thistension requires justification,notonlybecauseofitsfacialincon-
sistency,butalsobecauseofitsdeepconsequentiality. Specifically, accep-
tanceofdiscrimination inthedesirous privaterealmmayrender itimpossible
tofullyrejectdiscrimination inthepublicrealm.In thelaw,thisproblem is
perhaps bestseenin thejudicialrefusal to mandate thatlegaldistinctions
betweenthe sexes be completely abolished. Thus,whilethe Supreme
Court'sequalprotection jurisprudence subjects race-based classificationsto
strict
scrutiny,330it subjectssex-based classifications
onlyto intermediate
scrutiny.331 Evenas theactualnatureof intermediate scrutiny has tacked
closertostrictscrutiny,332theSupreme Courthasretained therhetorical dis-
tinction
between race-based andsex-based classifications.333
We havethus
notbeenabletopushjurisprudential norms against sexdiscrimination as far
as wehavepushed norms against racediscrimination.
Whilecommentators havejustified thisdistinction in a numberof
ways,334 thejustificationmostpertinent to thisanalysisrelatesto desire.
GeorgeRutherglen explains thelowertierofscrutiny associated withsexby
notingthatsex-based "classificationsarevaluedfortheir ownsakewithin an
HealthClubsGetProtection, BOSTONGLOBE, Feb. 7, 1998,at Bi (noting NOW's opposition to

billlegalizingsingle-sex
healthfacilities).
330. See, e.g.,Bushv. Vera,517 U.S. 952,952 (1996); AdarandConstructors,Inc.v. Pena,
515 U.S. 200,201 (1995).
331. See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv. Virginia,
518 U.S. 515,515 (1996);J.E.B.v. Alabamaex rel.
T.B.,511U.S. 127,127(1994).
332. See Cass R. Sunstein,
TheSupreme Court,1995 Term-Foreword: LeavingThingsUn-
decided,110HARV.L. REv.4, 75 (1996)(noting thattheCourtin Virginia"didnotmerely restate
theintermediate scrutiny
testbutpresseditclosertostrictscrutiny").
333. Cf Virginia,518U.S. 515.
334. Forexample,theyhavenotedthatwomen,unlikeblacks,arenota minority, see JOHN
HARTELY, DEMOCRACYANDDISTRUST164 (1980); thatwomen, unlikeblacks,havehistorically
beenintegrated withthedominant group,see id.; and thatwomen,unlikeblacks,exhibit"real"
physicaldifferencesthatdistinguish
themfrom thegrouptowhichtheyhavebeenhistorically sub-
ordinated,see SylviaA. Law,Rethinking Sex andtheConstitution, 132U. PA. L. REv. 955, 1007
(1984).

important areaofhuman life,namely sexualconduct, whereas racialclassifi-

cationsareneither so widelynorso openlyvaluedineveryday life."335Sex
from
is different raceinsofar as wenotonlypermit, butexpect, individuals to
havedesires vectoredtoward onlyonesex.
Theextent to whichthemonosexual presumption in thedesirous realm
blocksanadvancetoa sex-blind regime inthenondesirous realmshouldnot
be underestimated. Oureroticrelationships, afterall, areoftenviewedas
simultaneously constitutingandreflecting ourmostimportant emotional at-
tachments. Ifwe routinely structure thesecrucialrelationshipsbydiscrimi-
nating onthebasisofsex,itshouldcomeas no surprise thatwe (andourju-
dicialinstitutions)experience a failureofnervewhenaskedtocategorically
abolishall sex-based distinctions.
Monosexuals coulddefend thedistinctionbetween publicsex-blindness
andprivate sex-consciousness ina varietyofways.336 I donotseektoevalu-
atetheserationales here,as mypointis simply thatbisexualsmayoccasion
anxiety becausetheyholdouttheconceptual possibilitythattheserationales
arenotdispositive. Bisexuality implies thatsexneednotbe as important in
ourdesirous livesas wehavemadeit.337Bisexualsandasexualsarethusthe
onlyindividuals whoat leasthavethecapacity notto discriminate on the
basisofsexinanyaspectoftheir As such,theyhavethepotential
lives.338 to
evadethepublic/private tension withregardto sex in whichmonosexuals
findthemselves.
2. Straight
investment.
Straights
havea distinctive
investmentinbisexualerasure
relating
tothe
primacyofsex. Thisis becausesexis currently
understoodthrougha het-
erosexual
matrix;
thatis,straights
havea monopoly on sexnorms.Andbi-
sexuality,
unlike
homosexuality,hasthepotential
todisruptthatmonopoly.
335. GeorgeRutherglen, SexualEqualityinFringe-Benefit

Plans,65 VA. L. REv. 199,209
(1979).
336. First,
theycouldpointtothefactthattheyexperience theirorientations
tobe immutable,
suchthatthedesireis beyondtheircontrol.Second,theycouldrelyon autonomy arguments
relat-
ingto theirrightto discriminate in an immensely intimate
andconsequentialsphereof theirlife.
Third,theycouldcontend thattheirprivatenormsofsex-discriminationrelyon "realdifferences"
between menandwomen,whicharerecognized as permissible
evenbypublicanti-discrimination
norms.Fourth, theycouldcontendthatdifferentiation betweenthesexes fordesirouspurposes
shouldnotbe considered "discrimination"becauseitdoesnothavesubordinatingeffects.
Thereare
doubtless manyother possiblerationales.
337. See COLKER, HYBRID supranote9, at 30 (noting that"embracingthecategory of bi-
sexualitywouldhelpsociety recognize thatonecanfindanorganizing principle
otherthanbiologi-
cal sextodefine sexualattractiveness").
338. I thank IanAyresforthispoint.

To see this,beginwiththeincreasingly accepted viewthatwe all per-

form oursextosomedegree.339 Sex,no lessthananyother performance, is
alwaysshapedbyitsaudience.Whenwe perform oursexes,forwhomare
we performing? Theanswer is at leastpartiallythatwe areperforming for
thosewhomight desireus,andthattheperformance
potentially is anattempt
to convert thatpotentiality
intoan actuality. Theperformance of sex will
thusalwaysbe affected byprevailing codesofdesire.When(as now)het-
erosexuality is theprevailingcodeofdesire, womenwillbe encouraged to
perform theirsexina waythatis attractive tomen(andviceversa,although
thesymmetry is notcomplete). To be a "woman" is tobe attractivetomen,
tobe a "man"is tobe attractive towomen. 340
Itis thereforeanerrortoaccedetotheconventional wisdom thatsexis a
stable,prediscursive substratefrom whichheterosexuality is a simpleback
formation.341 Whileheterosexuality is a backformation fromsex,itis also
paradoxically truethatsexis a backformation fromheterosexuality. Current
normsofsexandcurrent normsofheterosexuality arethusimplicated in a
feedback loopinwhicheachshores uptheother.
Homosexuality doesnotpresent muchofa challenge to prevailing sex
normsin thisregard.Evenifmenbeginto lookwithdesireat othermen,
thismaynotsignificantly changesexperformance, as thatdesirous lookis
readas thefamiliar lookof theheterosexual womannow displacedin a
man'sbody.Thisis themodemvestige oftheoldertropeofthehomosexual
as "invert"-a"womantrapped insidea man'sbody"orviceversa.342 The
logicoftheinvert is themeansthrough whichhomosexuality is readback
intoa straightparadigm.343
339. See, e.g., BUTLER,supra note24, at 24-25. While Butlerrefersto genderratherthansex

in thisquotation,she elsewherehypothesizesthatthereis no real distinctionbetweengenderand
sex. See id. at 7 (describingthedistinctionas "no distinctionat all").
340. See DUNCANKENNEDY,SEXY DRESSING,ETC. 161 (1993) ("So long as I am a straight
man,a partof mybeing is hostageto women: I wantthemto existas women,notmen,as bearers
of thepossibilityof myown sexual excitement.").
341. See note 194 supra and accompanyingtext.
342. See TimEdwards, Beyond SexandGender: Masculinity, Homosexuality andSocial The-
ory,in MEN,MASCULINITIES & SOCIALTHEORY110, 112 (JeffHearn& David Morganeds., 1990)
(notingcharacterization of male homosexualsas thosewho sufferfromhavinga "femininesoul in a
male body").
343. As Bersaninotes,sometimestheinfliction of themale gaze on a male performer is read
back intotheheterosexualmatrixby invertingthesex of theperformer ratherthanthatof the ob-
server:
The New YorkTimesreported on April3, 1993,thata radarinstructor who chose notto fly
withan openlygay sailor,KeithMeinhold,fearedthatMeinhold's"presencein thecockpit
woulddistract himfromhisresponsibilities." Theinstructor"comparedhis 'shock'at learning
therewas a gay sailorin his midstto a womandiscovering 'a manin theladies' restroom."'
Notethecuriousscatologicaltranssexualism in ourradarinstructor's(letus hopemomentary)
identificationof hiscockpitwitha ladies' restroom.In thisstrangescenario,thepotentialgay
attackerbecomes the male intruder on femaleprivacy,and the "original"straight man is

Thebisexual, on theotherhand,deeplydestabilizessexnorms because

herdesirouslookcannotbe as easilycollapsedintoa straight paradigm.
Howdoesa manmakea bisexualdesirehim?Notbyadopting aspectsthat
havetraditionally
beendescribed as "masculine"
as thebisexualis alsopo-
attracted
tentially to the"feminine." Thelogicof inversionis insufficient
hereto protecttraditional
sex normsfrombisexuality becausebisexuality
doesnotsimply invertcross-sex butrather
desire, supplements itwithsame-
sexdesire.Bisexuality,
then,contests current
heterosexuality's monopoly on
sexperformance ina waythathomosexualitycannot.
3. Gayinvestment.
Gays,as wellas straights, haveinvestmentsinpreserving theprimacy of

sexas a diacriticaltrait.Unlikestraights,gayscandeploytheir homosexu-
alityto engagein a sex separatism thatis notonlysocial,butalso erotic.
Bisexualsthreaten thissex separatismbycreating a bridgeto theopposite
sex.
Allgayscanengageina moretotalform ofsexseparatism thanis possi-
ble fornoncelibate heterosexuals.Gayshaveat leastthecapacity to livea
fullerotic(as wellas a socialanda political)
lifeina community from which
theother sexis completely excluded.Thus,atleastalongtheaxisofsepara-
tism,lesbiansandgaymenarejustas, ifnotmore,likelythanstraights to
privilegetheimportance ofsexas a diacritical
trait.344
Thebestexample ofgaysexseparatism is whenwomen'spolitical soli-
darity(feminism) is hypothesizedto be connected to theirsame-sex erotic
attachment (lesbianism). As articulatedintheold slogan"Feminism is the
theory,lesbianism is thepractice,"345
theviewis thattheauthenticity of a
metamorphosed,through
another
man'simaginedsexualattention,
intotheoffended,
harassed,
orevenviolatedwoman.
BERSANI, supranote232,at 16-17(citations omitted).
344. Thisinsightmaybe somewhat counterintuitive,
giventhathomosexuality is oftenseenas
undermining theimportance of sex. It is of coursetruethathomosexuality is oftenseenas sub-
vertingsex expectations,
giventhatmanystereotypically deemgaymento be less masculine and
lesbianstobe less feminine
thantheirstraight counterparts.It is also truethathomosexuality can
be seenas diminishingcertain
forms ofhierarchy between thesexestotheextent, forexample, that
lesbianismcanbe seenas empowering feminism. Butdiminishing sex-based hierarchyanddimin-
ishingsex-basedconsciousness aretwodifferent things,
andI wouldcontendthathomosexuality
cando theformer notinspiteof,butbecauseof,thefactthatitdoesnotdo thelatter.
345. Theslogan"Feminism is thetheory, lesbianismis thepractice," is usuallyattributedto
Ti-GraceAtkinson.See, e.g., NancyChater& LilithFinkler, "TraversingWide Territories ": A
Journeyfrom Lesbianism to Bisexuality,in PLURALDESIRES: WRITINGBISEXUAL WOMEN'S
REALITIES 14, 15 (Leela Acharya,
NancyChater, DionneFalconer, SharonLewis,LeannaMcLen-
nan& SusanNosoveds.,1995)(attribution ofquotation
toAtkinson byFinkler).As NancyChater
notes,however, theoriginalquotewasactually "Feminism is a theory,
lesbianism is a practice."
Id.
at 36 n.1; see also GARBER,supranote11,at44 (quoting Atkinson correctlyas saying"Feminism
is a theory, lesbianismis a practice").As Chaternotes,thealterationin thesloganis "subtlebut

politics
is determined byhowitplaysoutinerotic practice.Whilethisis an
extreme position,onewayofreading itis tonotethat, as Adrienne Richhas
famously argued, thisdistinctionbetween anderoticsame-sex
political at-
tachments mayitselffalselybinarizea continuum of practices in which
womenidentify withother women.346
Likelesbians, gaymencanalsocreatecommunities thataretotally sex
segregated. Indeed,giventhedominance ofmenin almosteverysphereof
publiclife(perhaps mostpertinently employment) itis likelytobe easierfor
a gaymanthanfora lesbiantolivea lifethatentirely excludes thoseofthe
othersex. Butwhilegaymenhavemoreopportunity toengageinsexsepa-
ratism,theymayhavelessmotive todo so. Forif"Masculinism is thethe-
ory,gaymaleness is thepractice,"doesnottripoffthetongue, itmustbe in
partbecausemenas a grouparenotdisempowered.347 Lesbiansmaydraw
synergisticconnections between theirdisempowered statusas womenand
theirdisempowered statusas homosexuals. In contrast,thegayman'sprivi-
legedstatus as a mancanbe experienced as conflictingwithhisstigmatized
statusas a homosexual.Patriarchy makesthesocialmeaningof lesbian
separatismdifferent from thesocialmeaning ofgaymaleseparatism.
Thisdifference inturn maymakebisexuals morethreatening tolesbians
thantheyareto gaymen. If homosexuality permits a dreamof a social
worldwithout theothersex,bisexuality disruptsthatdreamby constantly
holdingoutthepossibility ofcross-sex attachment. Buttheawakening may
be ruderforlesbiansthanforgaymen,precisely becausecross-sex attach-
mentmaysignify capture bypatriarchy.
Onewayofunderstanding thisis toconsider so-called lesbianpornogra-
phy,thatis,the"[p]ortrayals ofallegedly lesbian'scenes"'that"area staple
ofheterosexual pomography."348 It might be askedwhythestraight male
consumers ofthispornography findthesceneso titillating, as itcouldactu-
allysignifyan eroticworldinwhichthereis no needformen.349 Manyof
thepossibleanswers clusteraround thepowerofthemalegazeto override
crucial,"Chater,supraat 36 n.1,arguablyshadingan ostensiblyneutraldistinction

betweenfemi-
nismandlesbianism intoa hierarchical
formulation favoring
thelatter.
346. See Adrienne Rich,Compulsory andLesbianExistence,
Heterosexuality in POWERSOF
DESIRE: THE POLITICSOF SEXUALITY177-205 (AnnSnitow, ChristineStansell& SharonThomp-
soneds.,1983). Thisbreakdown ofthedistinctionbetweenthepoliticalandthepersonalmaypar-
tiallyexplainwhylesbiansare less likelythangaymento deployimmutability as an etiological
explanationfortheirhomosexuality.Whether itis inactuality
chosenornot,lesbiansmayfeelas if
theirsame-sexattachments are moreconstructed thanessential,
giventhatsuchattachments are
political
as wellas erotic.
347. See SEDGWICK,supranote4, at36 (describing thisposition).
348. JohnStoltenberg,Pornography, Homophobia andMale Supremacy, in PORNOGRAPHY:
WOMEN,VIOLENCE,& CIVILLIBERTIES145, 155 (CatherineItzined., 1992).
349. See Rich,supra note 346, at 187 (describingthemale fearthat"women could be indif-
ferenttothemaltogether,
thatmencouldbe allowedsexualandemotional-therefore
economic-
accesstowomenonlyonwomen'sterms").

thatthewomenareunavailable
anyintimation tostraight
men.350 If,forex-
believesthatthewomenarebothavailabletohim,
ample,themalespectator
theirnumerosityenlivensrather thanexcludes: He sees two odalisques
ratherthanonecouple. Thesameinability to imaginea womanwhodoes
notdesiremenmayleadtothebeliefthattheabsenceofmeninthesexual
thathehimself
scenesignifies ofmeninthe
is thatman,thattheinvisibility
of subjectposition.Yet again,thespectator
mise en scene is theinvisibility
maybelievethatthescenedepicts womenoutofcontrol oftheirsexuality,
suchthata man'sentry wouldleadthemto directgreater attentiontoward
him.Undergirding all oftheaboveinterpretations is theassumption thatthe
malegazeis so powerful thatthereis no female bodythatis notultimately
arrayed formaledelectation. Andthisinturn meansthatthereis nowoman
whodoesnotcareaboutthemalegaze;there is nowomanwhodoesnotde-
siremen.
One mighttherefore thinkthatthemale gaze readsall womeninto
straightwomen.Butthedenomination ofthesceneas "lesbian"pornogra-
phy,as well as thescene'ssurfacedepiction of a woman'sdesirefora
woman, wouldseemtoundercut this.I thinkwemustentertain thepossibil-
itythatpartoftheappealofthesescenesliesin themalegaze's ability to
override thedesirethatwomenhaveforeachother.In otherwords,even
whenwomenareacknowledged to desireeachother, thatdesireis nonethe-
lessonlytheretobe trumped by thedesire that men have forthem.In the
context of"lesbian"pornography, themalegazemaybe an opticwheresex-
ismandheterosexism arepowerfully fused-mensexually conquerwomen
at thesametimeas heterosexuality conquers homosexuality. Underthis
reading, thechargeofthescenederivesfrom theman'striumph overboth
feminism and lesbianism, sexualconquest is politicalconquest.Forthat
charge toexist,then,
thewomencannotbe straight, as thecharge depends on
anoverridden same-sex desire.
Butthismeansthatthe"lesbians" inthepornography arebeingreadnot
as straightwomen, butas "bisexuals."351 Straightsinthiscontext maythus
be usingpreciselythesetofanalytic movesdescribed earlier,in whichbi-
sexuality theability
destroys ofmonosexuals to provethattheyaremono-
sexual.352 No matterhowardently thewomenexpress theirdesireforeach
other,theyareunabletoexorcise thepossibility raisedbythemalegaze,in
whichthatdesirenotonlycoexists with,butis superseded by,a desirefor
350. See ANDREADwoRKJN,PORNOGRAPHY: MEN POSSESSINGWOMEN 47 (1989) (de-

scribing
"lesbian"pornographyas "theultimatetribute tomalepower:themaleis notin theroom,
yetthewomenarethereforhispleasure").
351. Thismight be seenas an anomalous wayinwhichstraight malesmakebisexualsmore,
rather
thanless,visible.Whatis curious, however,is thattheydo notmakebisexualsvisibleas
such-recallthatthepornography is stillviewedas "lesbian"pornography,
ratherthanas "bisex-
ual"pornography.

men. Bisexuality in thisformulationmaythreaten lesbiansas thetrope

throughwhichwomen'sattachments towomenareimaginatively destroyed
Indeed,ifI amright,
andfalsified. thedestruction
andfalsification
arewhat
inpartstimulate
maledesire.
The analysismaybe generalized beyondpornography-bisexuals may
be threatening
tolesbiansas a cultural
tropeforthephantasmatic
subversion
oftheirsame-sexdesirebystraightmen.Patriarchy,
hereespeciallythemale
gaze,maythusmakebisexuals morethreatening
alongthisaxisto lesbians
thantogaymen.
C. Bisexuality
DestabilizesNormsofMonogamy
Eveninitsnomenclature, bisexuality
is framedas excess.To be "bi"is
to be doubled,353
to be "mono"is tobe one.354To defamiliarize thesefor-
mulations,wemight returntotheFreudian conceptionoforiginarybisexual-
ity,whichframes bisexualityas an prelapsarian
wholeness fromwhichwe
fallaway.355 Rather thandenominating themonosexual as wholeandthe
bisexualas surfeit,
wemight denominatethebisexualas wholeandthemon-
osexualas fragment. Viewedinthislight, theflawmight be seennotas the
bisexual'sexcess,butratherthemonosexual's lack.356
Thatwe donotviewthings inthislightcanbe seennotonlyintheway
we namebisexuals, butalsointhewaythatwe otherwise portraythem.Bi-
sexualdesireis seennotas a completion, butrather as an excess. Thisis
perhaps mostclearlyseeninthestereotype ofbisexualsas promiscuous.357
It shouldthereforenotsurprise thatthefinalinvestment straights
and
gayshavein bisexualerasurestemsfromtheirperception thatbisexuality
threatensnonnsof monogamy.The investment in thatnonnsharedby
353. See 2 OED, supranote9, at 165.

354. See 9 id.at 1008-09.
355. See note92 supraandaccompanying text.
356. A similarparadigm shiftwas madein TheSymposium withregardto sex. See PLATO,
SYMPOSIUM41-45(Benjamin Jowetttrans.,HaydenPelliciarev.,1996). ThereAristophanes re-
countsthestoryofhoweachmanandwomanwas originally conjoinedat thebackto another
man
orwoman.As punishment forarrogance,eachmanandwomanwas cutawayfrom hisorherother
half.Thisis whymenandwomennowgo aboutsearching forothermenandwomen,inthehopes
thatby finding theirlostotherhalves,theycan regaintheirprelapsarian wholeness.Again,this
challengesourview thatindividual menand womenare wholeunitsand thatpairedmenand
womenaredoubledunits.It insteadencourages us to viewthecoupleas theunitandindividual
menandwomenas incomplete halvesof thatunit. Thatview,of course,has morecredencein
contemporary American culture(thinkof descriptionsof couplesas "unions"or descriptions
of
spousesas "betterhalves")thantheviewthatbisexuals represent
a desiredwholeness.
357. See WEINBERGET AL., supranote113,at 69. The self-conception of somebisexual
groupsdemonstrates thestrengthsof thisstereotype. The Washington, D.C. Bi-Women's(and
Men's)Network, forexample, wasformed for"moretraditionally
orientedbisintomonogamous or
duogamous relationships
only."See PoliticalActivism:A BriefHistory,inBI ANY OTHERNAME,
supranote257,at359,361.

and gaysis thesexualjealousybothgroupsexperience

straights in non-
monogamous nonmonogamous)
(or potentially relationships.The distinc-
relatestotheperception
investment
tivelystraight thatbisexualnonmonog-
amyleadstothetransmissionofHIV from thegaycommunity tothestraight
community. gayinvestment
Thedistinctively relatesto thedesireofsome
gaystoevadetheportrayalofgaysas promiscuous.
Forbothstraights andgays,bisexuality canraisedeepissuesof sexual

jealousythatmayultimately require itsdenigration ordisavowal.I takethe
straightmanwhois romantically involved witha bisexualwomanas my
paradigm example.However, itshouldbe clearthattheanxieties discussed
arenotspecific tohisorientation orsex.
Atthemostbasiclevel,thestraight manis threatened byhisfemale part-
ner'sbisexualitybecausehemustcompete notonlywithother men,butalso
withother women.Onemight sayheis madetounderstand WoodyAllen's
famousquipthatbisexuality doublesone's chancesof getting a dateon a
Saturday night358from theother side. Thisfear,understood purelyquantita-
tively,seemsillogical.As a preliminary matter, itis basedon badmath-
shiftingfrom beinga "straight" womantobeinga "bisexual" womandoes
notnecessarily"double" yourdating pool,as manystraight menandlesbians
willnotdateavowedbisexuals.359 Moreimportantly, itseemsunlikely thata
partofthejealousyengendered
significant bybisexuality canbe explained
bytheanxiety ofentering a largerdating pool. Does itmakea difference
whether oneis competing withfivebillionpeoplerather thantwo-and-a-half
billionpeople?Orevenfifty rather thantwenty-five people?
Thesequestions suggest thatthethreat ofbisexuality rather
is qualitative
thanquantitative.Itis notthatone'sbisexual partner canleaveyoufortwice
as manypeople,butthatshecan leaveyoufora different kindofperson.
Theanxiety is aroused notbyrivalswhomight alsooffer whatyoupossess,
butbyrivalswhomight offerwhatyoudonotpossess.
Whilethisqualitative concern is moreintelligible, itis notbeyondcriti-
cism.Thisis becausethequalitative concern is basedinpartontheassump-
tionthatif one desiresbothsexes,onemustconsummate thatdesirewith
bothsexes.As PaulaRusthasnoted, "thebisexual'sability toform relation-
shipswithmembers ofbothsexesis interpreted as a needforrelationships
358. See JosephP. Kahn, TheNewBookonBisexuality, BOSTONGLOBE,Sept. 6, 1995, at 75

("To be bisexual,Woody Allen once said, immediately
doublesyourchances fora date on Saturday
night.").
359. See, e.g., RuST, CHALLENGE, supra note71, at 101 (notingreluctanceof lesbians to as-
sociatewithbisexuals).

withmembers ofbothsexes."360 Rustthencriticizes thislogic,askingread-

ersto"imagine concluding thata person whofinds bothblueandbrown eyes
attractivewouldrequire twolovers, onewitheacheyecolor,instead ofcon-
cluding thatthispersonwouldbe happywitheither a blue-eyed ora brown-
eyedlover."361
Evenifoneretires theassumption thatthosewhodesirebothsexesmust
consummate theirdesiresforbothsexes,thequalitative concern stillsur-
vives. Thisis becausethestraight manmaybe certain ofhisbisexualpart-
ner'sfidelity, butmaystillbe concerned thatbecauseofherstated bisexual-
ity,he is notsatisfying all ofherdesires.Herarticulation ofherdesirefor
womenisreadas anarticulation ofhiserotic inadequacy.
Buteventhisrefined defense seemsinadequate.As one commentator
has noted,it wouldbe incredibly hubristicto believethatanyindividual
couldeversatisfy all ofanother individual'sdesires,whether eroticoroth-
erwise.362 In emphasizing thislimitation,bisexuality couldthussounda
healthy noteofrealismabouttheincompleteness of all humanrelation.363
Moreover, one could arguethattobe found inadequate becauseofone'ssex
wouldbe less threatening thanto be foundinadequate on some other
ground,364 as allofus areinadequate inpossessing onlyonesex.365
A finalresponse might be thatthereis a difference between inarticulate
andarticulate bisexuality. To return totheearlierexample, onemight see a
difference between a womanwhomentions toherbrown-eyed husband that
sheis also particularly attracted to menwithblueeyesanda womanwho
keepsreiterating thistoherhusband. Thedifference between sayingthatyou
areattracted toothers onceandsaying itrepeatedlyis thedifferencebetween
realismandsadism;thefirst comports withnormsofcourteous monogamy
whiletheseconddoesnot. Evenifthewomancontinues tobe attractedto
menwithblueeyes,sheis notonlysupposed torefrainfrom actingon that
attraction,
butalsotorefrain from repeatedlyarticulating
it. Carryingoneself
as a bisexualmustbe readagainst thisnormofcourtesy. A manmight ac-
ceptthatit is irrational to feelparticularly inadequate becausehispartner
360. Paula C. Rust,Monogamyand Polyamory: Issues for Bisexuals,in
Relationship
BISEXUALITY:THE PSYCHOLOGYAND POLITICSOF AN INVISIBLEMINORITY127, 128 (BethA.
Firestein
ed.,1996).
361. Id. One responseto thisis thatan individual's
sex is so muchmoreimportant thanan
individual's
eyecolorthattheanalogyis inapt.As discussedabove,however, bisexualsmaynot
necessarily
holdtheviewthatan individual's sexis moreimportant thaneyecolor. See notes314-
319supraandaccompanying text.
362. See GARBER,supranote11,at451-52(quoting interview withBrianFord).
363. Id. at 451.
364. See WEINBERGET AL.,supranote113,at 108(notingthatbisexualswhodatedbisexuals
weremorejealous of "outside"partners
of theirownsex because"a personof thesamesex as
themselvescouldmeetsimilarneedsandthusreplacethem.");
see also GARBER,supranote11,at
449-50(discussing
study).
365. I assumeherethatintersexuals
alsopossessone,ratherthantwo,sexes.

statedtohimoncethatshewasattracted towomen.He might, however,find

itrational
tofeelinadequateifhispartnerkeptreminding himofthis.
Therubhereis thatthemanis interpreting hispartner's carryingherself
as a bisexualtobe sucha reminder. Butthisis notnecessarily thecase,at
leastinthesensethathispartner mightcarryherselfas a bisexualforreasons
other thantooccasionjealousy.
As ever,therearenormative rebuttals
to eachofthepotential reasons
whybisexuals might occasionjealousy.As ever,thesenormative rebuttals
donotmeanthatthejealousieswilldiminish. To theextent thattheyendure,
theywillactas anincentiveforbisexualerasure.
2. Straight
investment.
Underthemonogamy thedistinctively
heading, investment
straight inbi-
sexualerasurerelates
toAIDS. Bisexualityhasbeenprominentlyportrayed
as a bridge
thattransmits
HIV from thegaycommunity totheso-calledgen-
eralpopulation.366
"Inthemindsofmanyheterosexual Americans,bisexual-
ityhas cometo be strongly identified
withimagesof married, dishonest,
closetedmensneaking outon theirunsuspecting
wives,contractingAIDS
through unsafesexwithother men,theninfectingtheirinnocent
wivesand
children."367
In thelate 1980sandearly90s,themainstream pressrana
of
flurry stories concerningtheAIDS threatbisexuals
posedto heterosexu-
als.368
I earliershowedthatbisexuals wereviewedas an avenuethrough which
heterosexuality was calledintoquestion.369 Bisexualsarethusperceived to
be a bridgealongwhichtwoundesirable traits-same-sex desireandHIV-
pass froma gayminority to a straightmajority.In thesexualorientation
context,themajority is characterizedas straightandHIV-negative, whilethe
minority is characterizedas gayandHIV-positive. Thebisexualchallenges
bothcharacterizations-the firstepistemologically,thesecondepidemiologi-
cally.Hismereexistence callstheheterosexuality ofthemajority intoques-
tion.Andhissexualpractices callitsHIV-negative statusintoquestion.
Alongside thisconvergence, however, is an important divergence.We
sawthatcharacterizing thebisexualas a carrier ofsame-sex desireplunged
thebisexualintoobscurity. In contrast,thecharacterizationofthebisexual
as a carrier
ofHIV lofted thebisexual intotemporary visibility.
Thediscrep-
366. See Ochs, supra note63, at 227.

367. Id.
368. See, e.g.,DavidGelman,A PerilousDoubleLoveLife:In theAIDS Era,BisexualsAre
Becoming theUltimate Pariahs,NEWSWEEK,July13, 1987, at 44; Knox, supranote 272, at 57;
Katie Leishman,HeterosexualsandAIDS,ATLANTICMONTHLY,Feb. 1987, at 39, 48; Nordheimer,
supra note272, at 1.
369. See notes264-278 supra and accompanyingtext.

ancycanbe explained bytheperceived roleofsocialvisibility

inperpetuat-
ingeach. Homosexuality is generally
regardedtobe spreadthroughitsvisi-
bility-themereutterance ofthe"contagious word"of same-sexdesireis
thought to perpetuateit.370 HIV, on theother hand,is generallyseenas
spreadthrough its invisibility-making HIV morevisible,figuratively
through education,371
or literallythrough tattooing,372
is viewedto be pro-
phylactic.Straightswhowishto control bothhomosexuality andHIV are
thusin a doublebindvis a visbisexualvisibility. To theextent thatthey
wishto safeguardtheir ownheterosexuality, theywillwishto erasebisexu-
als,as theexistence
ofthebisexualmakesitimpossible forthemto conclu-
sivelyprovetheirheterosexuality. To theextentthattheywishtosafeguard
theirHIV-negativestatus, however, theywillseektokeepthebisexualvisi-
ble.373HIVhasforced straights toconfessthebisexualtheywouldotherwise
deny.374
370. See JUDITHBUTLER,EXCITABLESPEECH:A POLITICSOF THE PERFORMATIVE 103-26

(1997).
371. See CINDY PATTON,INVENTING AIDS 52 (1990) ("In privateconversations,in public
healthcampaigns,and in thescientificand para-scientific literature,'knowledge' is promotedas the
essentialingredientin theeffortto slow thetransmission of HIV. To thefearfulcitizen,knowledge
meansinformation whichprovesthatshe/hewill notdevelopAIDS.").
372. See LARRYGROSS,CONTESTEDCLOSETS 59 (1993) (notingWilliam F. Buckley,Jr.'s
proposalthatmenwho testHIV-positivebe tattooed).
373. This double bind cinchesparticularly tightly
because one way in whichbothhomosexu-
alityand HIV mightproperlybe describedas infectiousis thatone individualcan affectan entire
community.Leo Bersanisays thatthe numberof homosexualsin a populationmay be irrelevant
insofaras homophobiais fueledby the "fearfulexcitementat theprospectof becomingwhatone
alreadyis." BERSANI,supra note 232, at 28. "One gay man ... deep in a distantprovinceof a
nationotherwisetotallysuccessfulin its genocidalcampaignagainstgays would be enoughto hold
up, forhis appalled and expectantcountrymen, themirrorin whichtheycould not escape recogniz-
ing theiralready recruitedselves." Id. (I am assumingthat this analysis would apply just as
stronglyto bisexuals). Similarly,it has been said that"'[i]t also takesonly one bisexual to intro-
duce theAIDS virus[sic] intotheheterosexualcommunity."'JanZita Grover,AIDS. Keywords,in
AIDS: CULTURALANALYSIS/CULTURAL ACTIVISM17, 21 (Douglas Crimp ed., 1988) (quoting
ART ULENE,SAFE SEX IN A DANGEROUSWORLD(1987)). Thus, straightsmustensurethatnot a
single bisexual entersthe culturalimaginationwhile simultaneously ensuringthateverysingle bi-
sexual remainsvisible.
374. No similardouble bind occursrelativeto homosexualvisibility,wherea genericinvisi-
bilityrulehas worked. This mayseem counterintuitive, insofaras thestraight goal would stillbe to
cabin the two "diseases" of homosexualityand HIV, and insofaras the two "diseases" have op-
posed relationshipsto discourse,withhomosexuality beingspreadthroughdiscourseand HIV being
spreadby a lack of it. The significant differencebetweenthebisexual and thehomosexual,how-
ever,is thathomosexualsare not perceivedas spreadingHIV into the straightcommunity.Thus
one strategyto evade thedouble bindhas been to spreadHIV discourseonly insofaras it does not
pertainto same-sex sexual conduct. See PATTON,supra note 371, at 55-56 (describingstate and
federalfundingrestrictions on AIDS educationthatforbidfundingof projectsthat"promotehomo-
sexuality"). This cabins HIV among straightswhile decreasingthe spreadof homosexuality,not
only throughdampeningdiscourseabouthomosexuality, but also by leavinghomosexualsmoreat
riskforHIV.

Jan.2000] ERASURE
BISEXUAL 425
Itmayseemironic ofbisexuals
tolistthevisibility as carriersofAIDS in
themainstreampressas a symptom ofbisexualerasure.Butthatcasecanbe
defendedontwogrounds. First, aboutthebisexualAIDS threat
visibility has
notbeensustained, perhapssuggesting a straightinvestment in repressing
to AIDS.375 In otherwords,bisexuality
vulnerability
straight maybe re-
pressednotinspiteof,butbecauseof,theperception thatitis an epidemiol-
ogicalbridge.Suchdenialaboutriskcanbe seenin manyothercontexts,
suchas theminoritizing discourseof AIDS as a diseasethatonlyaffects
sociallymarginal
certain groups.376Second,to theextent thatthebisexual
hasbeenmadevisibleas an AIDS threat, hasbeenso narrow
thatvisibility
andso negativeas tobe entirely Andsuchdelegitimation,
delegitimating.377
375. An alternative explanation forwhytheroleofbisexualsin thetransmission ofHIV has

notachievedsustained visibilityis thatresearchhasdemonstrated thatthisthreat is notsignificant.
Thisexplanation seemsweak,as thestudieson theroleofbisexuality in cross-sex HIV transmis-
sionhavebeenindeterminate.
Some studiesminimize theimportance ofbisexuality'srolein suchtransmission. See, e.g.,
MariaL. Ekstrand, ThomasJ.Coates,Joseph R. Guydish, WalterW. Hauck,LindaCollette & Ste-
phenB. Hulley,AreBisexually IdentifiedMeninSan Franciscoa CommonVector forSpreading
HIV Infection to Women?, 84 AM. J. PUB.HEALTH915, 919 (1994) (concluding "thatsingle,
bisexually identified
meninSanFrancisco do notappeartobe a common vectorforspreading HIV
diseaseto women");JamesG. Kahn,JillGurvey, LanceM. Pollack,Diane Binson& JosephA.
Catania,HowManyHIVInfections CrosstheBisexualBridge?AnEstimatefrom theUnited States,
11 AIDS 1031,1031(1997) (concluding "that[cross-sex]transmission via bisexuality is a rela-
tivelyminor component oftheestimated 40,000annualHIV infections intheUSA").
Otherstudies, however, contend thatbisexuality's
rolein cross-sex transmission of HIV has
beenunderestimated. See, e.g.,TheresaDiaz, SusanY. Chu,Margaret Frederick, Pat Hermann,
AnnaLevy,Eve Mokotff, BruceWhyte, MaryHerr,PatriciaJ. Ehecko,CornelisA. Rietmeijer,
FrankSorvillo& QaiserMukhtar, Sociodemographics and HIV RiskBehaviorsofBisexualMen
withAIDS: Results froma Multistate Interview Project,7 AIDS 1227,1231(1993) (documenting
"multiple riskbehaviors thatmaybe morecommonamongbehaviorally bisexualmen");Thomas
Lerner& MaryAnnChiasson, Seroprevalence ofHumanImmunodeficiency VirusTypeI andSex-
ual Behaviorsin BisexualAfrican-American and HispanicMen Visiting a SexuallyTransmitted
Disease ClinicinNew YorkCity,147AM.J.EPIDEMIOLOGY269,271 (1998) (notingthat"[i]tis
conceivable thatHIV transmission from bisexualmentotheir femalesexualpartners playsa greater
rolein heterosexual transmission in African-American andHispaniccommunities thanwas previ-
ouslyrecognized").
I makeno attempt toweighthemerits ofthesestudies.I simply register theconflict between
themas an indication thattherehasneverbeena scientific consensus thatbisexuality hasa minimal
rolein cross-sex HIV transmission. Indeed,studiesreviewing theexisting literature notethatnot
enoughresearch has beendoneto support anysuchview. See, e.g., LyndaS. Doll & Carolyn
Beeker,MaleSexualBehaviorandHIVRiskintheUnited States:Synthesis ofResearchwithImpli-
cationsforBehavioral Interventions, 8 AIDS EDUC. & PREVENTION205, 219-220 (1996) (review
ofexisting researchwhichnotesthattheroleofbisexualsinHIV transmission maybe significant in
certaincontexts, butthat"[flurther epidemiologic andbehavioral research is urgently neededto
morefully describesthe[se]contexts").
376. See PaulaA. Treichler, AIDS,Homophobia, andBiomedical Discourse:AnEpidemic of
Signification,inAIDS: CULTURALANALYSIS/CULTURAL ACTIVISM,supranote373,at31,65-67.
377. Thisparticular genreof visibility shouldnotbe takenas solicitude forbisexuals,but
ratheras solicitudeforthewayin whichbisexualscan infect thestraight population.In this,the
bisexualoccupiesa parallelposition totheprostitute.As Sedgwickhas recognized, "[i]thasbeen
notable.. . thatmediacoverageofprostitutes withAIDS hasshownnointerest inthewomenthem-

as notedabove,378 tobisexualerasure
contributes bisexualsfrom
bychilling
expressingtheir
identities.
3. Gayinvestment.
The distinctively
gayinvestment in bisexualerasure pertainingto mo-
nogamy hastwoelements. First,
manygaysandlesbianswishtoretire the
stereotype ofgaysas promiscuous.Second,somelesbians viewbisexuals as
carrying HIV intotherelatively
unaffectedlesbiancommunity.
Self-identified
gays,ofcourse,do notspeakunivocally againstpromis-
cuity.Somein thegaycommunity viewmonogamy as an oppressive cul-
turalinstitution
oftheheterosexual establishment.379
Butovertime,those
seekingto disestablishthestereotype(andanyunderlying reality
beneath
it)380haveincreasedinnumber.381Onepotential explanation forthisshiftis
the AIDS epidemic, whichhas mademanygaysreconsider theirnon-
monogamous sexualpractices.382
Another is thatthegrowing acceptability
ofhomosexuality hasmadeassimilation moreofa possibility.
selves, butonly in theirpotentialforinfecting

men." SEDGWICK,EPISTEMOLOGYOF THECLOSET,
supra note4, at 5 n.8. Similarly,media coverageof bisexualswithHIV has shownlittleinterestin
thebisexualsthemselves,butonlyin theirpotentialforinfecting straights.See GARBER,supra note
11, at 93-96.
378. See note235 supra and accompanyingtext.
379. See,e.g.,PatCalifia,UnMonogamy:
LovingTricks
and Tricking
Lovers,inPUBLICSEX:
THE CULTUREOF RADICALSEX 199, 199-204 (1994) (criticizingmonogamyas utopianand repres-
sive); Douglas Crimp, How to Have Promiscuityin an Epidemic, in AIDS: CULTURAL
ANALYSIS/CULTURAL ACTIVISM,supra note 373, at 237, 272 ("Gay male promiscuityshould be
seen . . . as a positivemodel of how sexual pleasuresmightbe pursuedby and grantedto everyone
if those pleasures were not confinedwithinthe narrowlimitsof institutionalized sexuality.");
DOUGLASSADOWNICK,SEX BETWEENMEN: AN INTIMATEHISTORYOF THE SEX LIVES OF GAY
MEN POSTWARTO PRESENT86 (1996) (notingargumentsagainstmonogamymade by gay activists
in the 1960s).
380. This stereotypefindsmoresupportin thegay male communitythanin thelesbian com-
munity.See Donna Binder,Monogamy:Is It For Us?, THE ADVOCATE,June23, 1998, at 29, 30.
381. See, e.g., Bruce Bawer,Sex-NegativeMe, in BEYONDQUEER:CHALLENGING GAY LEFT
ORTHODOXY171, 172 (Bruce Bawer ed., 1996) [hereinafter BEYOND QUEER] ("To suggestthat
gays are more definedby theirlibidos [thanstraights]is to collaboratein the widespread,dehu-
manizingview thatgay sex is invariablymechanical,impersonal,even bestial,while straightsex is
an integralpart of the complex web of human feeling,connectedness,and commitmentbefore
God."); MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE,LIFE OUTSIDE: THE SIGNORILEREPORTON GAY MEN: SEX,
DRUGS,MUSCLES,ANDTHE PASSAGESOF LIFE 208-65 (1997) (discussingtheprevalenceof mo-
nogamousrelationships in thegay male community).
382. See, e.g., JohnW. Berresford, A Gay RightAgenda,in BEYONDQUEER,supra note381,
at 105, 108 (notingthat"[i]n a curiousway, AIDS itselfmaybe helping[gay men] findsocial ac-
ceptance,"since it "has broughtto a screechinghalt" the gay male promiscuityof the 1970s and
1980s);Frederick
R. Lynch,
Nonghetto
Gays:AnEthnography
ofSuburban
Homosexuals,
in GAY
CULTURE iN AMERICA:ESSAYS FROMTHE FIELD 165, 166 (GilbertHerdted., 1992) (notingthat
"the adventof AIDS musthave had some degree of adverse effecton the lure of the 'swinging
single' life-styleforhomosexualsand heterosexualsalike"). Others-most prominently
represented
in the Sex Panic movement-have arguedthatAIDS shouldnotpush gays towardmonogamy,but

Theclassicsitusofthegaydebateoverpromiscuity is themarriage con-

text.Marriage is seenas deeplyconnected tomonogamy, insofar as itis the
state'ssanctionof an ostensibly life-longanderoticallyexclusive relation-
shipbetweentwoindividuals.383 Whilethisnexusremainsimperfect in
practice,thefiction ofthemarriage as bothreflectingandreinforcing mo-
nogamous commitment remains strong.384Manygayshaverejected mar-
riagein thesamewaythattheyhaverejected monogamy, as exemplifying
heterosexist
(andsexist)norms.385 Hereas elsewhere, however, thereis a
growing assimilationistfactioninthegaycommunity thatseekstheentitle-
mentofmarriage. Members ofthisfaction expressdisdainforpromiscuity
in generalandpolygamy inparticular(sincethelatteris oftenviewedas a
potentialconsequence ofsanctioning same-sex marriage).386
To theextent thatbisexuals areviewedas intrinsicallypromiscuous, as-
gayswillbe loathtorecognize
similationist themas political allies,as such
an affiliation
might corroborate,ratherthanrebut,thestereotype ofgaysas
promiscuous.Bisexualsmaythuspose thegayrights movement witha
milder version
ofthequestion posedbypedophiles387 orpolygamists.388 On
theone hand,solidarity withothersexualminorities suggeststhatthey
shouldbe included within themovement; ontheother, realism suggests that
thelegitimacyofthemovement maybe undermined bysuchaffiliations.
An additionalconcemvoicedbylesbiansagainst theostensible promis-
cuityofbisexuals is thatbisexualsmight carryHIV intothelesbiancommu-
nity.DespitethefactthatHIV is often characterized
as a "gay"disease,les-
biansarelessatriskforsexualtransmission ofHIV thaneither gaymenor
rathertowardthepracticeof safe sex. See, e.g., JosephSonnabend& RichardBerkowitz,Safer-Sex

Panic, in SEX PANIC! 13, 14 (1997) (arguingthat"it is thecall forsexual restraint
and monogamy
withits inherentdeemphasisof safersex thatnow constitutes thegreaterhazardto thehealthof gay
men"); JimEigo, TheMonogamyCode, in SEX PANIC!,supra, at 15, 16 (arguingagainstthe"attack
on safersex" and thepromotionof "global gay male monogamy").
383. See WILLIAMN. ESKRIDGE,JR.,THE CASEFORSAME-SEXMARRIAGE1 (1996).
384. See id. atI.
385. See,e.g.,PaulaEttelbrick,SinceWhen Is Marriagea PathtoLiberation?, in SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE:PROANDCON: A READER(AndrewSullivaned., 1997).
386. See AndrewSullivan, Three'sa Crowd,in SAME-SEXMARRIAGE,supranote 385, at
278-79.
387. See, e.g., Duncan Osborne,The TroublewithNAMBLA,THE ADVOCATE,Dec. 14, 1993,
at 40 (reportingthe International
Lesbian and Gay Association'srequestthatthe NorthAmerican
Man-Boy Love Associationresignfromtheorganization);JoycePrice,Pedophiles ResistingExpul-
sionfrom GayUmbrella Organization,WASH.TIMES,Nov. 27,1993, at A4 (similar).
388. See,e.g.,David L. Chambers,Polygamy andSame-Sex Marriage,26 HOFSTRAL. REv.
53, 53 (1997) ("During the hearingsand debates thatled to the Defense of MarriageAct, many
membersof Congress and many witnessesdrew comparisonsbetween polygamyand same-sex
marriage.");Sullivan, supra note 386 (arguingthatpolygamyand same-sex marriageare easily
distinguishable).

straights.389It is thusunsurprising thatsomelesbians,likesomeheterosexu-

als,390fearthepotentialof bisexualsto serveas an epidemiological bridge
froma "high-risk" to a "low-risk"community.One bisexualcommentator
notesthat"gaywomenarehesitant tobecomeinvolvedwithbi-the-way-girls
becauseWE SPREAD AIDS orwillleavethemfora man,"391whileanother
suggeststhatshe is perceivedas an "AIDS-carrying parasiteon the
high-risk
movement."392 The propinquity of the chargeof HIV transmission to the
chargeor capitulation to patriarchy(framedeitherindividually as the ulti-
materejectionof a womanfora manor politically as theinabilityofthebi-
sexualparasiteto rejectheterosexual privilege)maybe purelycoincidental.
It may,however,suggestthatjust as the straight community occasionally
appearstomakeHIV standforthe"disease"ofhomosexuality,393 so too does
thelesbiancommunity makeHIV standforthe"diseases"ofpatriarchy and
capitulationto heterosexual privilege.
D. OverlappingMonosexualInvestments
as a Cause ofthe
EpistemicContract
This Parthas suggestedthatstraights and gays have enteredintothe

epistemiccontract ofbisexualerasurebecauseofthreedifferent investments:
(1) an investment in stabilizingsexualorientation; (2) an investment in re-
tainingtheprimacyofsex; and(3) an investment inpreserving normsofmo-
nogamy.
Straights and gays have an investment in stabilizingsexual orientation
categories.The sharedaspectof thisinvestment is thesecuritythatall indi-
vidualsdrawfromrigidsocial orderings.The distinctively straight
invest-
mentis theretention of heterosexualprivilege. And the distinctively gay
investment relatesto theperception thatbisexuality endangerstheimmuta-
bilitydefenseandeffective politicalmobilization.
Bothstraights andgaysmayalso wishto erasebisexualsbecausebisexu-
alityhas disturbing consequencesforthecurrent sex regime.All monosex-
uals are createdthrough a regimethatprivilegessex, and theythushave an
investmentin bisexual erasurethat relates to their own constitution.
Straights have a specificinvestment in bisexualerasurebecausebisexuality
disruptsthepowerheterosexuality has to determine sex performance. And
389. See William N. Eskridge,Jr.,Multivocal Prejudicesand HomoEquity,74 IND. L.J.

1085, 1118 (1998) (notingthatwhile gays are oftencharacterizedas carryingHIV, "thedata makes
it clear that... lesbiansseem to have thelowestratesof AIDS . .. of anyof thegroupings").
390. See notes366-368supra.
391. Karen and MirandaAugustine,WhatSome Call Community... OthersCall Clicks, in
PLURALDESIRES,supranote345, at 37, 37.
392. Michelle Spring-Moore,Queergirl,inPLURALDESIRES,supranote345, at 226, 243.
393. JUDITHBUTLER,BODIES THATMATTER:ON THE DISCURSIVELIMITS OF "SEX" 64
(1993) (describingtheconflationof homosexuality
and AIDS as pathologicaldiseases).

gayshavea specificinvestment becausebisexualityinterfereswithcomplete

sex separatism.
Finally,bothstraightsand gaysare disquietedbybisexualsinsofaras bi-
sexualsare thought to represent nonmonogamy.Straights and gayshave a
sharedinvestment in decreasingsexualjealousy. Straightsare peculiarly
threatened insofaras theybelievethatbisexualnonmonogamy bridgesthe
gap betweenthe HIV-infected gay populationand the uninfected straight
population.Andgaysaredistinctively threatened
bybisexualnonmonogamy
to theextentthattheywishto retirethestereotype of gays as nonmonoga-
mous.
These multipleand overlapping investmentsin bisexualerasureexplain
the longevityof the epistemiccontract.But theyare not insurmountable.
The veryfactthatbisexualerasurehas beenrecognizedindicatesthis,forthe
paradoxof statushierarchy is thattheoppressedcategorymusthave some
to
power be recognizedas such.394But thismeansthatevenas thereare in-
vestments in bisexualinvisibility,
thereare simultaneous and countervailing
investments inbisexualvisibility.
The groupwiththemostpowerfulinvestment in bisexualvisibilityis
composedofself-identified bisexuals.In thenextPart,I lookat howbisexu-
als haverespondedto theepistemiccontract.Thatnarrative is one of both
capitulationand resistance,
testifying to boththe strength of the epistemic
contractandthepossibilityofitsgradualdissolution.
IV. SELF-IDENTIFIEDBISEXUALSANDTHEEPISTEMICCONTRACT
The longevity of theepistemiccontract

can be explainedin two ways.
The firstis thatbisexualsarenotharmedby thecontract, or,morestrongly,
thatbisexualsbenefitfromtheirownerasuresuchthatthecontract couldbe
characterized as trilateral
rather
thanbilateral.The secondis thatdespitethe
factthatbisexualsareharmedbythecontract, itis so powerfulthatbisexuals
are prevented fromfullyconceivingof themselves as bisexuals,or fromef-
fectivelydissolvingthatcontract eveniftheydo. The twoexplanations are
not mutuallyexclusive,insofaras bisexualsare not a monolithicgroup.
Some bisexualsfitthestereotype of thosewhotakeadvantageof heterosex-
ual privilegewhileengagingin clandestine homosexualactivity.395 Others
experiencebisexualerasureas a harmand militateforbisexualvisibility.396
394. Cf MarthaMinow, The Supreme Court,1986 Term-Foreword: JusticeEngendered,

101 HARV. L. REv. 10,68 (1987) ("Poweris at itspeakwhenit is leastvisible,whenit shapes
preferences,
arrangesagendas,andexcludesseriouschallenges
fromdiscussion or evenimagina-
tion.").
396. See notes402429 infraandaccompanying text.

Whichexplanation we viewas dominant,however, conse-

has significant
quencesforhowserious weviewtheproblem ofbisexual tobe.
erasure
Whileitis difficult between
toarbitrate thetwoexplanations,I willar-
gueinthisPartthatwe shouldseriously entertain ofthesecond
theviability
one. I beginthisargument byobservingthattheepistemic prevents
contract
ofbisexualidentity
thearticulation ateveryphaseofbisexualdevelopment,
impeding theformation ofa bisexual thatcouldmeaningfully
subject consent
to itsown erasure. I thennotethat the
despite demands of the an
contract,
increasinglyvisiblebisexualmovement itsdesireforvisibil-
hasarticulated
ity.
totheEpistemicContract
A. BisexualCapitulation
Theepistemic contractobstructs every phaseofbisexualdevelopment. I

consider threephaseshere:(1) pre-coming outas bisexual;(2) post-coming
outtosomeothers; and(3) post-coming outto"all"others.
Theprocessofcoming outas a bisexual maybe retarded bythefactthat
norobust templateofbisexualidentity exists.Evenina timewherethere is
anincreasingly modelofgayidentity,
available thereis noequivalent onefor
bisexualidentity. Manyindividuals whomight otherwise identifyas bisex-
ual mayrefrain fromdoingso onlybecausetheycannotimagine thatiden-
tity.397Possiblesupportforthishypothesis canbe foundin a recent study
showing that come
bisexuals out as bisexual relativelylater
than homosexu-
alscomeoutas homosexual.398
Evenaftera bisexualcomesoutto someothers, sheencounters enor-
mouspressure topresentherselftotherestoftheworldas straight. A study
oftherelative degreesof"outness" intheworkplace among(1) gays,(2) bi-
sexuals,and(3) straightswithunorthodox sexualpractices foundthatgays
weremostlikelytobe out,followed bybisexuals,followed byheterosexuals
withunorthodox sexualpractices.399Itis surelynoaccident thatthisexactly
trackstheascending degreetowhichtheseidentities canbe hiddenwithin a
heterosexual matrix.Moreover, evenaftera bisexualcomesoutto some
others,shewillbe under pressure tobe selectivelycloseted.Thisis perhaps
mosttrueinthedating wherebisexuals
context, findthatbothstraights and
gayscanoften bereluctanttodatebisexuals.
Finally,evena bisexualwhois outto "all" others willhavea difficult
timecommunicating this. The monosexual presumption meansthatif a
397. See GARBER, supra note 11, at 48-49 (givingaccountsof bisexualswho were introduced
to thebisexual categoryrelativelylate); WEINBERG ET AL., supra note 113, at 121 (notingthatbi-
sexuals generally"come out" laterthanhomosexuals"because thereis a less clear identitywith
whichto 'come out"').
398. See WEINBERGET AL., supranote113,at 121.
399. See id. at 188-89.

womanwalksdownthestreet holdinghandswitha man,we arelikelyto

thinkofheras straight; ifshedoesthesamethingwitha woman,we are
likelytothinkofheras lesbian.400 Thispresumption leadsus tocodeindi-
vidualsas monosexual unlesstheyevidenceconcurrent bisexuality.
This synchronic approach to orientation
assignation can obtaineven
whena diachronic account oftheindividual'seroticlifeis available.Ruth
Colkersupports thispointbynoting thereflexive
useoftheterm"hasbian"
to describewomenwhoshiftfroma sustained same-sex to a
relationship
sustainedcross-sex Sucha shift
relationship.401 couldequallybe described
as sequential
bisexuality-the patternofconductis thusoverdetermined and
requiresnarratologicalresolution.Thatthisambiguity is resolvedbefore
beingrecognized suggests a synchronicapproach to orientationattribution:
The"hasbian" classification
readsthecurrentconduct as the"true"oneand
thepastconduct as therepudiated thanreading
one,rather thembothas an
embrace ofsequential Sucha synchronic
bisexuality. approach willtendto
eliminateallbutconcurrentbisexualsfromthebisexual category.
B. BisexualResistancetotheEpistemicContract
Theargument thatbisexuals tobisexualerasure

capitulate becausethey
are notharmed by it is also undercutby an increasingly
visiblebisexual
movement. Themovement's developmentcanbe crudelydividedintothree
phasesbydecade.
The bisexualmovement did notbeginin a patternedwayuntilafter
Stonewall.402
Onecoulddoworsethandateitsinauguration totheformation
oftheNationalBisexualLiberation (NBL) groupin NewYorkCityin the
early1970s.403TheNBL beganpublication ofa magazine,
BisexualExpres-
sion,in 1975,roughly coinciding withthefirst
booksandmainstream press
aboutbisexuality.404 The magazineprovidedan antidoteto the de-
legitimating
treatments of "bisexualchic"in thepopularpress(including
Time405andNewsweek406) thatsuggestedthatbisexuality
was theperquisite
400. See Ochs,supranote63,at225.

401. See RuthColker,A BisexualJurisprudence,
3 LAW& SEXUALITY127, 129-30(1993)
[hereinafter
Colker,
BisexualJurisprudence].
402. San Francisco's
SexualFreedom League,founded
in 1967,mightbe seenas a precursor
to thebisexualmovement inthatitencouragedexperimentation
withbothsexes. It was not,how-
ever,explicitlya bisexualorganization.
403. See StephenDonaldson,TheBisexualMovement's in the70s: A Personal
Beginnings
Retrospective,
inBISEXUALPOLITICS,supranote7, at31, 42-43.
404. See Donaldson,supranote403,at43.
405. See TheNewBisexuals, supranote230,at79.
406. See BisexualChic,supranote230,at90.

ofandrogynous rockstarssuchas David Bowie orEltonJohn.407The NBL's

meetingsconsistedofmonthly social eventsand consciousness-raising
exer-
cises.408In itssocialcast,theorganizationwas similarto manythatfollowed
in thatdecade 409 such as New York City's Bisexual Forum(foundedin
1975),410 San Francisco'sBisexual Center(foundedin 1976),411 and Chi-
cago's Bi-Ways(foundedin 1978).412Bisexualactivistswerealso occasion-
allyprominent in earlygay-identifiedendeavors.For example,Alan Rock-
way,a "gay-identified bisexual,"co-authoredthewell-known Dade County,
Floridaordinancethatbecamethefirstordinanceto protectgay rights,and
whichspawnedthenationalanti-gay "Save OurChildren" crusade.413
In the 1980s,thebisexualmovement shiftedtowardclaimsforgreater
recognition as a politicalmovement,414 withactivistsattempting
to distin-
guishbisexuality fromsexualswinging.BiPOL, thefirstbisexualpolitical
actiongroup,formedin San Franciscoin 1983.415And manydatethebirth
of thenationalbisexualmovement to thesecondMarchon Washington for
Lesbian and Gay Rightsin 1987,wherea nationalbisexualnetwork, later
knownas BiNET USA was formed.416 The shiftmighthave been expected
as a simplebyproduct oftheincreasedmaturity andself-consciousness
ofthe
bisexualmovement, withincreasing numbersof bisexualorganizationspro-
407. See JayP. Paul,San Francisco'sBisexualCenterand theEmergence of a Bisexual

Movement, in BISEXUALITIES: THE IDEOLOGY AND PRACTICE OF SEXUAL CONTACT WITH BOTH
MEN AND WOMEN 130, 132 (ErwinJ.Haeberle& RolfGindorf eds., 1998);see also GARBER,
supranote11,at 18-19(describing TimeandNewsweek articles);
Donaldson, supranote403,at35
(same). Itwas atthistimethattheterm"AC/DC"becamepopularized todescribe bisexualpeople.
See GARBER, supranote11,at38.
408. See Donaldson, supranote403,at42-43.
409. See Udis-Kessler,supranote308,at22-23.
410. See ChuckMishaan,TheBisexualSceneinNewYorkCity,11 J.HOMOSEXUALITY 223,
224 (1985). Theorganization foldedin 1983. See id.
411. See DanielleRaymond & Liz A. Highleyman,BriefTimeline ofBisexualActivism inthe
United States,inBISEXUAL POLITICS, supranote7, at333,334. TheBisexualCenter ofSan Fran-
ciscohelditsfirst pressconference onJune30, 1977. Speakersincluded Dr. BenjaminSpock,Dr.
PhyllisLyonandRuthFalk. Manyofthesespeakers challengedAnitaBryant's efforts tobarho-
mosexualsfromemployment as schoolteachersanddiscussed othercivilrights issues. See Maggi
Rubenstein & CynthiaAnn Slater,A Profileof theSan FranciscoBisexuality Center,11 J.
HOMOSEXUALITY 227,228-30(1985).
412. See GeorgeBarr,ChicagoBi-Ways:AnInformal History, 11 J.HOMOSEXUALITY 231,
232-34(1985). In theearly1980s,ActionBi-Women was formed intheChicagoareatodevelopa
feminist-orientedbisexualgroup.See id.at234.
413. See PoliticalActivism:A BriefHistory,
inBI ANYOTHER NAME, supranote257,at359,
363.
414. See Udis-Kessler,
supranote308,at26 (discussing increasing
politicalactivity
ofbisex-
ualmovement).
415. See id.;Raymond& Highleyman, supranote411,at334.
416. See Paul,supranote407,at 137;PoliticalActivism,
supranote413,at364; Raymond &
Highleyman,supranote411,at335.

liferatingacrossthecountry.417 But the shiftcan also be attributed

to the
AIDS crisis,whichcame intopublicvisibility in theearlyyearsof thedec-
ade. In 1987,Time4l8 andNewsweek4l9wouldagainpublisharticlestouching
uponbisexuality, butthistimenotabout"bisexualchic,"butaboutbisexual-
ityand AIDS.420 Bisexualityhad now acquireda seriousedge: Newsweek
calledbisexualsthe"ultimate pariahs"oftheAIDS crisis.421
In the 1990s,bisexualpoliticshas risento greaternationaland interna-
tionalprominence.The FirstNationalBisexualConference convenedin San
Franciscoin 1990,withBisexualPrideDay proclaimed bytheSan Francisco
Boardof Supervisors.422 The followingyearssaw theFirstInternationalBi-
sexual Conference held in Amsterdam,423 thepublicationof two majorbi-
sexual anthologies,424 and the inauguration of a nationalbisexual maga-
zine.425By 1993, the Marchon WashingtonforLesbian and Gay Civil
RightshadbecometheMarchon Washington forLesbian,Gay andBi Equal
Rightsand Liberation.426 Whether to nameor notto namebisexualsalong-
sidegaysandlesbianshas becomean explicitissueofdebate.427 Thatdebate
has also trickledintothelaw. As evidencedby Colorado'sAmendment 2428
and themilitary's "don'task,don'ttell"policy,429
bisexualsare increasingly
nominally visible,evenifpoliticallyrepressed.
417. Theseincluded theBostonBisexualWomen'sNetwork in 1983,theEastCoastBisexual

Network in 1985,theSeattleWomen'sBisexualNetwork in 1985,andtheWashington D.C. Bi-
Women's(andMen's)Network in 1989.See PoliticalActivism,supranote413,at360-61.
418. See Martha Smiglis,
ScottBrown,DaveMorrow & LeslieWhitaker, TheBig Chill:Fear
ofAIDS,TIME,Feb. 16,1998,at50,52.
419. See Gelman, supranote368.
420. See Paul,supranote407,at 137-39(describingarticles).
421. Gelman,supranote368,at44;see alsoGARBER, supranote11,at93 (describingarticle).
422. See Raymond & Highleyman, supranote411,at 335-36. Theconference was attended
byoverfourhundred peoplefrom twenty-two statesandfivecountries. See Paul,supranote407,
at 137.
423. See KLEIN,supranote81, at 169. Thesecondandthirdinternational bisexualconfer-
encesoccurred inLondonandNewYorkinthemid-1990s. See id.
424. See Bi ANY OTHER NAME, supra note 257; CLOSER TO HOME: BISEXUALITYAND
FEMINISM(ElizabethRebeaWeiseed.,1992).
425. TheBayAreaBisexualNetwork beganpublishingthemagazineAnything ThatMovesin
January,1991. See GARBER,supranote11,at54.
426. See Raymond & Highleyman, supranote411,at337.
427. See,e.g.,GARBER, supranoteI 1,at80-81(describing overremoval
controversy ofword
"bisexual"fromNorthampton, Massachusetts Lesbianand Gay PrideMarchin 1990); id. at 53
(describing
controversyoverinclusionof word"bisexual"in mastheadof San FranciscoBay
Times,whichthenread,"TheGay/Lesbian/Bisexual Newspaper& CalendarofEventsfortheBay
Area").
428. See Romerv. Evans,517 U.S. 620, 624 (1996) (quotingColorado'sAmendment 2,
whichprohibitsprotection
ofbisexualstatus);notes48-52supraandaccompanying text.
429. See 10 U.S.C. ? 654(b)(2) (1994) (makingunrebutted statements
of bisexualself-
identification
grounds forseparation
from service);supranote44 andaccompanyingtext.

Thebisexualmovement's aimsarediverse,andbothconverge anddi-

vergewiththoseofthegayrights movement. Thus,bisexuals,likegays,can
be seendeploying bothas a meansofretiring
bisexuality all sexualorienta-
tioncategorizations
andas a meansof contesting placement withinthose
categorizations.
On theotherhand,bisexualsalso haveinterests in their
thatarespecific
visibility to them:thatis, interests
thatcombatbiphobia
ratherthanhomophobia.Theseinterestsinclude
theretirement ofstereotypi-
cal viewsaboutbisexuality,
suchas theperceptions
thattheyareindecisive,
andpromiscuous.
duplicitous,
C. TheDissolutionoftheEpistemicContract
Theriseofthebisexual movement is probably themainfactorleadingto

thedissolution oftheepistemic contract ofbisexualerasure.Butas I have
shownin critiquing theinvestments ofbothstraights andgaysin bisexual
erasure,monosexuals alsohaveundertheorized investmentsinbisexualvisi-
bility.Thegayinvestments inbisexual visibilityareperhapseasiertosee-
bisexuality,forexample, canoperate as a usefulheuristicforevaluating
the
immutability defense,as wellas a meansoferoding heterosexual
privilege
byproblematizing theconcept ofheterosexuality itself.Straights,
however,
haveinvestments in bisexualvisibility as well,suchas challenging sex-
separatism in thegaycommunity ordefending conventionalnormsofmo-
nogamy.
Giventheriseofthebisexuality movement, itseemssafeto saythatbi-
sexualswillonlygrowmorevisibleinthefuture. Itis therefore
timetocon-
siderhowa worldinwhichtheepistemic contractno longerobtainedmight
look. In thenextPart,I considerhowa particular world-thelegalworld-
mightbe transformed byenhanced bisexual visibility.
V. BISEXUALITYANDSEXUALHARASSMENTLAW
Despitethefactthatitis oneofthemainpublicsitesin whichformal

determinations ofsexualorientation
aremade,thelegalsystem is complicit
incultural ignorance
aboutsexuality.430
Itshouldtherefore notbe surprising
thatbisexuals areforthemostpartas invisibleinthelawas theyarein our
general culture.Indeed,ifacademiccommentary is anyindication,
bisexu-
alityis farmoreundertheorized
inthelegalrealmthanitis inthesocialsci-
encerealm.In 1993,RuthColkerbeganan essayentitled A BisexualJuris-
prudence withthestatement:"A bisexualjurisprudence? UntilI decidedto
writethisessay,there wasno suchthing as a bisexualjurisprudence."431
A
430. Cf POSNER,supranote30, at 1 (notingthat"judgesknownextto nothing

aboutthe
subject[ofhumansexuality]
beyondtheir
ownpersonal experience").
431. Colker,
BisexualJurisprudence,
supranote401,at 127.

computer searchoflawreviewarticles thatdealwiththesubjectofbisexual-

itybearsoutherclaim:Onlya half-dozen articlestakebisexuality inthelaw
as theirprimary subject.432
Howmight increased bisexualvisibility thelaw? To beginthink-
affect
ingaboutthisquestion, I takethecaseofsexualharassment law. I do so for
three reasons.First, bisexualsaremorevisiblein thisareaofjurisprudence
thaninothers.433 ThisvisibilityarisesbecauseliabilityunderTitleVII only
liesifthesexualharassment occurs"becauseof... sex." Underoneinter-
pretation,thisdoctrinal formulationpermits bisexualstoevadeliability when
theysexually harass both men and women, because no victim can claim that
theharassment occurred "becauseof' thevictim's "sex." Bisexualsarethus
notonlydistinguished from heterosexuals andhomosexuals, butarerhetori-
callyprivileged aboveboth.
As we shallsee,thisexemption has beenclosedas a practical matter.
Butbothinrecognizing andinclosingtheexemption, thecourts havehadto
grapple withthereality ofbisexualityina waythattheyhavenothadtoin
otherareas. Thus,whilethebisexualharassment exemption is unimportant
as a practicalmatter, ithasmadebisexuals uniquely visiblein antidiscrimi-
nation doctrine.
Second,bisexualvisibility hasthenormative consequence ofnarrowing
another pernicious exemption in the sexualharassment jurisprudence.434
Thisexemption, whichI call the"horseplay exemption," ariseswhenself-
identifiedstraights defend againstchargesofsame-sex sexualharassment by
stating thattheallegedhomosexual harassment was in factheterosexual
horseplay.Becausesexualharassment jurisprudence (at leastin thepast
decade)has directed muchmoresolicitude towardsexualharmsthannon-
sexualharms, an allegedharasser whois deemedtohaveengagedinhetero-
sexualhorseplay is muchmorelikelytobe exempted from liability
thanone
whois deemedtohaveengaged inhomosexual harassment. Thishorseplay
exemption is pernicious becauseitmakesliability turnon status ratherthan
onconduct-more onthesexualorientation
specifically, oftheactorsrather
432. I foundthreearticles,twoessays,andonestudent notethattooktheroleofthebisexual

in thelaw as theirmainsubject.See RuthColker, Bi: Race,SexualOrientation,
GenderandDis-
ability,56 OHIOST. L.J. 1 (1995) (article);RuthColker,An EmbodiedBisexualPerspective, 7
YALE J.L.& HUMAN.163 (1995) (article);Mezey,supranote8 (article);Colker,BisexualJuris-
prudence, supranote401 (reviewessay);DouglasS. Miller,Rumpole and theEqual Opportunity
Harasser(or JudgeBork'sRevenge), 20 J.LEGALPROF.165 (1996) (essay);RobinApplebaum,
The "UndifferentiatingLibido": A NeedforFederalLegislation toProhibitSexualHarassmentby
a BisexualSexualHarasser,14 HOFSTRALAB.L.J.601 (1997) (note). As thislistshows,Ruth
Colkerhas donethemostwriting in thisarea;herarticleentitledBi: Race,SexualOrientation,
Gender, andDisabilityhasalsobeenexpanded intoa prescient
book. See COLKER,HYBRID, supra
note9.
433. I omitfurthercitationinthisparagraphas wellas theonesthatfollowas thepointsmade
hereareexplored moredeeplywithcitations below.See textaccompanying notes464-502infra.
434. See textaccompanying notes503-534infra.

thanon thenature oftheallegedlyharassing acts. Andunlikethebisexual

harassment the
exemption, horseplay exemption is wideopen.
ForreasonsI willdescribemorefully, thehorseplay exemption as itcur-
rentlystandsis predicated
on bisexualinvisibility. Bisexualvisibilitythus
hasthesalutary ofsignificantly
consequence narrowing thisexemption. And
becausethecourts havealreadymadebisexuality visibleinthecontext ofthe
bisexualharassment exemption,thisargument has a certainelegantforce.
Whilethecourtshavesoughtto keepthebisexualharassment exemption
closedand thehorseplay exemption open,thisstatusquo is inconsistent.
Narrowing thebisexualharassment exemption through bisexualvisibility
logicallycompelscourtsto significantlynarrow thehorseplay exemption.
Callthistheconservative
critique.
Finally,closingthehorseplayexemption hasitsownspillover effectson
thedegreeto whichthesexualharassment jurisprudence willcontinue to
fetishize
desireas determinative
ofliability.435Theconservative critiqueis
conservativeinthesensethatitaccepts, ratherthancontests, theaforemen-
tionedpremise thatsexualharmis moreseriousthannonsexual harm.As
VickiSchultz hasrecently
andpersuasively argued, however,thispremise is
deeplyproblematic.436Herargument is timely, as theSupreme Court'sre-
centdecisionin Oncale v. Sundowner
Offshore
Services437
suggeststhatsex-
ual harassment jurisprudenceis at a cross-roads.
It can eithercontinueto
privilege sexualharmovernonsexual harmor breakwiththatpractice to
treatsexualandnonsexualharmequally.
Bisexualvisibility
might actas a goadto forcecourts downthecorrect
pathafterOncale. Closingthehorseplay exemption leavesmanyputative
straightsmoreat riskofearning theascriptions
ofhomoeroticism andhar-
assment.Bisexualvisibilitymight thusencouragestraights,as wellas gays,
toresista regime inwhichliabilityturnssolelyondesire.Callthistheradi-
cal critique.
After brieflysummarizing thedevelopment of sexualharassment juris-
prudence, thisPartconsiderseachofthesereasonsforconsidering bisexual
visibility
insexualharassment law. Itthenbrieflyconsiders theimplications
bisexualvisibility
mighthaveoutside thesexualharassment context.
A. A Summary
oftheDevelopment
oftheSexualHarassment
Jurisprudence
TitleVII oftheCivilRightsActof1964makesit"anunlawfulemploy-
mentpracticeforanemployer... todiscriminate
against
anyindividual
with
respect
tohiscompensation,terms,conditions,
orprivileges
ofemployment,
435. See textaccompanying

notes535-554infra.
436. See VickiSchultz,
Reconceptualizing
SexualHarassment,
107YALEL.J.1683(1998).
437. 523U.S. 75 (1998).

becauseofsuchindividual's ... sex."438Thislanguage hasbeeninterpreted

to prohibitsexualharassment in theworkplace.As Katherine Frankehas
noted,however, courts
havelongbeenunclear aboutwhysexualharassment
is sex discriminationprohibited by TitleVII, andhavegenerated at least
threedifferent theories.439
Thefirst is thatsexualharassment is actionable
insofaras itwouldnothaveoccurred butforthevictim's sex;thatis,insofar
as itoccurred "becauseof. . . sex"under thelanguage ofthestatute.440 The
secondis thatitis actionable becauseitis sexualinnature.441 Thethird is
thatsexualharassment is actionable becauseitenactsonesex's subordina-
tionofanother.442
The firsttwotheories havebeenthemostdominant. The struggle be-
tweenthemcanbe characterized as passingthrough fourconceptual phases.
In thefirstphase,the"becauseof. . . sex"theory wastheascendant theory.
Indeed,thedesire-based theory wasnotevenacknowledged-early claimsof
desire-basedharassment wererejected as notraising a cognizableclaimun-
derTitleVII. Thus,inCornev. Bausch& Lomb,Inc.,443thejudgedismissed
allegationsofdesire-based harassment byreasoning thatno TitleVII claim
could lie whenthe allegedharasserwas merely"satisfying a personal
as opposedtoacting
urge,"444 pursuant toa company policy.445Andin Tom-
kinsv. PublicServiceElectricand Gas Co.,446 thedistrict courtrefused to
recognize desire-basedclaimsunderTitleVII becauseotherwise "[a]ninvi-
tationtodinner couldbecomean invitation toa federal lawsuit."447Charac-
terizingthesexualconductas idiosyncratic, or as raisingslippery slope
problems, thecourts essentially sidestepped thequestion ofwhether thiswas
discrimination"becauseof.. . sex."448
438. 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e-2(a)(1994).

439. See Katherine M. Franke,What'sWrong withSexualHarassment?, 49 STAN.L. REv.
691,692-93(1997).
440. See,e.g.,Rabiduev. OsceolaRefining Co.,805 F.2d611,620 (6thCir.1986);Bundyv.
Jackson,641 F.2d934,942 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1981);Barnesv. Costle,561 F.2d983,989 n.49(D.C.
Cir.1977);see also Franke, supranote439,at705-14.
441. See, e.g.,Yearyv. GoodwillIndus.-Knoxville, Inc.,107F.3d443,445 (6thCir. 1997);
Mattern v. EastmanKodakCo., 104F.3d702,706 (5thCir.1997);Fullerv. Cityof Oakland,47
F.3d 1522,1527(9thCir.1995);see also Franke, supranote439,at714-25.
442. See Vandeventer v. WabashNat'l Corp.,887 F. Supp. 1178,1181 (N.D. Ind. 1995);
Goluszekv. Smith, 697 F. Supp.1452,1456(N.D. Ill. 1988);see also Franke,supranote439,at
725-29.
443. 390 F. Supp.161(D. Ariz.1975),vacated, 562F.2d55 (9thCir.1977).
444. Id. at 163.
445. Forsimilarreasoning, see Millerv. Bankof America, 418 F. Supp.233,235-36(N.D.
Cal. 1976)(finding thatno TitleVII claimcouldlie fortheisolatedandunauthorizedsex miscon-
ductofoneemployee toanother),
rev'd,600F.2d211(9thCir.1979).
446. 422 F. Supp.553(D.N.J.1976),rev'd,568F.2d 1044(3d Cir.1977).
447. Id. at557.
448. See Franke,supranote439, at 700 (noting judicialconcernovertheslippery slope
problem).

In thesecondphase,courtsrejectedthisevasionas illogical, that

finding
desire-basedharassment occurred
typically "becauseof ... sex." The im-
petusforthisbeliefcamefrom feministactivists
suchas KerriWeisel,who
contendedthatdesire-basedharassment was sex-based harassment because
anindividualusuallydirects
desireonlyatonesexortheother. 449
Thefirstcourttoadoptthistheory wastheD.C. Circuit,inthe1977case

ofBarnesv. Costle.450 Thedistrictcourtin Barneshadgranted summary
judgmenttothedefendant becauseit foundthatPaulette Barnes"'was dis-
criminatedagainst,
notbecauseshewasa woman, butbecausesherefused to
engageina sexualaffairwithhersupervisor.'`451A paneloftheD.C. Cir-
cuit reversed,notingthatdesire-basedclaims and "because of ... sex"
claimscouldnotbe dissociated
inthisway.Itstated:
We cannotacceptthisanalysisofthesituation
.... Butfor[Barnes's]woman-
hood,fromaughtthatappears, herparticipation
in sexualactivity
wouldnever
havebeensolicited.... [Bames]becamethetarget ofhersuperior'ssexualde-
siresbecauseshewas a woman,andwas askedto bowto his demandsas the
priceforholding
herjob. Thecircumstanceimparting highvisibility
totherole
ofgenderintheaffairis thatno maleemployee was susceptible
to suchan ap-
proachby appellant's
supervisor.Thusgendercannotbe eliminated fromthe
formulationwhichappellantadvocates,
andthatformulation advancesa prima
faciecaseofsexdiscrimination
withinthepurview ofTitleVII.452
Othercircuitssoon adoptedthistheory.453 And in 1986,in MeritorSavings
Bankv. Vinson,454theSupremeCourtnotedthat:"Without question,whena
supervisorsexuallyharassesa subordinate becauseof thesubordinate'ssex,
thatsupervisor on thebasisofsex."455
'discriminate[s]'
In thethirdphase,as Schultzhas shown,a chiasmusoccurredbetween
thetwotheories.456 The desire-basedtheory,
whichhadbeenthesubordinate
theory,becamethedominant theory; the"becauseof ... sex" theory,which
hadbeenthedominant theory,becamethesubordinate
theory.Desirewas
nowoftenframed as eithera precondition
oran important
component ofa
successful
TitleVII sexualharassment
claim.Theascendancy
ofthedesire-
based theorymanifested
itselfin a numberof ways,perhapsmostpromi-
449. See Schultz,supra note 436, at 1702 (citingKerriWeisel, Title VII: Legal Protection
Against
SexualHarassment,
53 WASH.L. REv. 123, 133-35(1977)).
450. 561 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
451. Id. at 986 (quotingBarnes v. Train,Civ. No. 1828-73, slip op. at 3 (D.D.C. Aug. 9,
1974)).
452. Barnes,561 F.2d at 990.
453. See, e.g., Millerv. Bank of America,600 F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1979); Tomkinsv. Public
Serv. Elec. & Gas. Co., 568 F.2d 1044 (3d Cir. 1977).
454. 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
455. Id. at 64.
456. See Schultz,supra note 436, at 1690 ("Ironically,courtsthatonce refusedto recognize
thatsexual advances may occur because of sex now insiston such advances and fail to perceive
manyotherproblemsthatconfront womenworkersas sex-based.").

nentlyin thedenomination of thecauseof actionas "sexualharassment"

rather
thanas "sex-based" or"gender-based" harassment.457
Itcouldalsobe
seenin theEEOC guidelines, whichadvanced a desire-based
theory ofhar-
assment.458 Thatascendancy couldalso be seenin thecase law. Some
courts
helddesiretobe a prerequisitefora successful
TitleVII claim,459
and
evencourts thatconsideredbothsexualandnonsexual claimsoftenignored
orsubordinatedthelatter.460
TheSupreme Court'srecent inOncalecanbe seenas potentially
opinion
usheringin a fourthphase. In Oncale,theSupreme Courthadto ascertain
whether same-sex sexualharassment was actionable
underTitleVII, andif
so,under whatrestrictions.
In so doing,ithadtochoosea theory from a set
thatincludedthe desire-basedtheory461
and the "because of ... sex" the-
ory.462
The Supreme Courtembraced the"becauseof ... sex"theory.463This

holdinghasobviousimplicationsforall ofsexualharassmentjurisprudence,
insofaras itrejectedtheviewthatdesireis a requirementfora successful
TitleVII suit.As I demonstrate
below,however, whetherOncalecantruly
be seenas breakingfromthethird
phaseremains tobe seen.
B. BisexualVisibility-The
Recognition
and ClosingoftheBisexual
HarassmentExemption
Sexualharassment jurisprudence
is distinctive
in thatitnotonlynames
bisexuality
buttreatsit differently
(andrhetoricallymorefavorably)than
either
heterosexuality
orhomosexuality. Itwouldbe a mistake,however,
to
457. See id.at 1692.

458. See id. at 1704& nn.95& 97 (noting thatthatEEOC guidelines couldbe andwereread
toprivilegesexualharm)(citingEEOC Guidelines onDiscrimination BecauseofSex,62 Fed.Reg.
63,622(1980)(codified at29 C.F.R.? 1604.11(1997))).
459. See Schultz, supranote436,at 1718& n.167(citing, interalia, Yearyv. GoodwillIn-
dus.-Knoxville,Inc.,107F.3d443,445 (6thCir.1997);Mattern v. EastmanKodakCo., 104F.3d
702,706 (5thCir.1997);Fullerv. CityofOakland, 47 F.3d 1522,1527(9thCir.1995)).
460. See Schultz, supranote436, at 1710-29(citing, interalia, Harrisv. ForkliftSys.,Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993); Kingv. BoardofRegents, 898 F.2d533 (7thCir. 1990);Scottv. Sears,Roe-
buck& Co.,798F.2d210(7thCir.1986);Reynolds v. Atlantic
CityConvention Ctr.,53 FairEmpl.
Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1852(D.N.J.1990),affd,925 F.2d419 (3d Cir. 1991);Raleyv. Boardof St.
Mary'sComm'rs, 752F. Supp.1272,1280-81(D. Md. 1990);Graham v. American Airlines,731 F.
Supp. 1494,1500-01(N.D. Okla. 1989);Ross v. DoubleDiamond,Inc.,672 F. Supp.261 (N.D.
Tex. 1987);Sappv. CityofWarner Robins,655F. Supp.1043,1049-50(M.D. Ga. 1987)).
461. CompareMcWilliams v. FairfaxCountyBd. Of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191,1195(4th
Cir.1996)(ruling thatsame-sex sexualharassment claimwasnotactionable wheredefendants were
heterosexual),cert.denied,519U.S. 819(1996),withWrightson v. PizzaHut,99 F.3d 138,143-44
(4thCir. 1996) (rulingthatsame-sexsexualharassment claimwas actionable wheredefendants
werehomosexual).
462. See Quickv. DonaldsonCo.,Inc.,90 F.3d1372,1377(8thCir.1996).
463. See Oncalev. Sundowner OffshoreServs.,Inc.,523U.S. 75,78 (1998).

takethecourt'srecognition
ofthebisexualharassmentexemption as anindi-
cationofbisexualprivilege.As a practical the
matter, bisexualharassment
exemption hasbeenclosed.Nonetheless,inordertoclosethebisexualhar-
assmentexemption ina coherentway,courts havebeenforced intotheoriz-
ingbisexualitywithsomesophistication.
Thus,despitethefactthattheex-
emptionis notjurisprudentially
important,ithascompelleda significant
ad-
missionaboutbisexualexistence.
1. Therecognition ofthebisexualharassment
exemption-
bisexualvisibility.
Bisexualswerefirst madevisibleinthesexualharassment jurisprudence

whentheshiftfrom thefirstphasetothesecondphasewas beingcontem-
plated.In Corne,464 thecourtstated thatitwouldbe "ludicrous" tocall de-
sire-basedharassment sexdiscrimination,"becausetodo so wouldmeanthat
iftheconduct complained of[malesexualadvances onfemales] wasdirected
equallytomalesthere wouldbe nobasisforsuit."465 Thebisexualpossibil-
itywasthusadduced toproblematize theextensionofTitleVII's coverage to
desire-basedclaims.
Whileitmadetheshift from thefirst
phasetothesecondphasedespite
thisproblem, theD.C. Circuit inBarneswas notableto solveit. Barnes
simply buriedtheunresolved issueina footnote,notingthat"[i]nthecaseof
thebisexualsuperior, theinsistenceuponsexualfavors wouldnotconstitute
gender discrimination it
because wouldapplytomaleandfemale employees
alike."466ThislefttheBarnestheory vulnerabletoattack,
as couldbe seenin
a subsequentcase in thecircuitadoptingthattheory.In dissentingfroma
denial of rehearingin Vinsonv. Taylor,467 then-judges
Scalia, Bork,and
Starrarguedas follows:
[T]hiscourthastwicestatedthatTitleVII doesnotprohibit sexualharassment
by a "bisexualsuperior [because]theinsistence uponsexualfavorswould...
applyto maleandfemaleemployees alike."[citingBarnesv. Costle,561 F.2d
983,990 n.55(D.C. Cir.1977);Bundyv. Jackson, 641 F.2d934,942 n.7 (D.C.
Cir. 1981)).] Thus,thiscourtholdsthatonlythedifferentiating libidoruns
afoulof TitleVII, andbisexualharassment, howeverblatantandhoweverof-
fensiveand disturbing, is legallypermissible.Had Congressbeen aimingat
sexualharassment, it seemsunlikely thata womanwouldbe protected from
unwelcome heterosexual orlesbianadvancesbutleftunprotected whena bisex-
ual attacks.Thatbizarre resultsuggeststhatCongress wasnotthinking ofindi-
vidualharassment at all butofdiscrimination in conditionsof employment be-
causeofgender.Ifitis proper toclassifyharassment as discrimination
forTitle
464. 390 F. Supp. 161 (D. Ariz. 1975).

465. Id. at 163.
466. Barnesv. Costle,561 F.2d 983, 990 n.55 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
467. 760 F.2d 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (dissentingfromdenialof rehearingen banc).

doc-
in subsidiary
VII purposes,thatdecisionat leastdemandsadjustments
trines.468
thatTitleVII couldnothavebeenintended
Thesejudgesthuscontended to
reachdesire-based becausedoingso wouldpermit
discrimination bisexuals
toevadeliability.
The embarrassment thatbisexuality causessexualharassment jurispru-
denceis clear. An individual whowouldbe liableforengaging in certain
conduct canevadeliability forthatconduct byengaging inmoreofthecon-
ductdirected attheopposite sex. I callthisthe"doublefornothing" prob-
lem-bydoubling theproscribed conduct, theharasser lowershisliability to
nothing.469Thisresult is so counterintuitive thatcommentators whousually
seemfarapartonthepolitical spectrum-such as Robert BorkandCatharine
MacKinnon-can agreethatthisresult is anomalous.470
Theproblem ofthebisexualharasser demonstrates themanner inwhich
bisexuality norms
destabilizes thatprivilege sex-based distinctions. TitleVII
privilegessex as a diacriticalaxis-onlydiscrimination thatoccurson this
axis(oronanother enumerated axis)is actionable. As such,thestatute can-
notencompass bisexualswhoaretruly sex-blind within itsprohibitions. I
earliernotedthatthesex-blind bisexual(orasexual)might be celebratedas
theonlytypeofindividual whocouldcredibly saythatsheneverdiscrimi-
natedonthebasisofgender.471 Butthesex-blind bisexualmayexpress hos-
tility
to othersindiscriminately as well. Andwhenshedoesso, ournorms
againstsexdiscrimination willbe insufficient toholdherliable.
Thefactthatbisexuals havegarnered this"advantage" overbothhetero-
sexualsandhomosexuals explains theirrelative visibilityin thesexualhar-
assment jurisprudence.Inareasofthelawwheredifferential treatment ofthe
sexesis notrequired,bisexuals areneither privileged norvisible.A bisexual
468. Id. at 1333n.7.

469. Itbearsnotethatthis"doublefornothing" problemis notjusta problem in thedesire-
basedharassment context,insofar as a harasser
whoharassedbothmenandwomenin nonsexual
wayswouldalso evadeliability undera strictapplicationofthe"becauseof.. . sex"test.Thebi-
sexualharassment exemption is thusa subsetofan"equalopportunity" harassmentexemption. The
factthat"doublefornothing" is notspecificto thedesire-basedcontext shouldnotbe surprising,
becausetheproblem arisesfrom theasymmetrical treatmentofsexrequired bythe"becauseof...
sex"languageinthestatute, ratherthananything specifictodesire.
Butthismeansthattheminatory statements
madeabout"doublefornothing" in Vinsonlack
subtlety.ThesejudgesarguedthatTitleVII couldnothavebeenintended toreachthedesire-based
contextbecauseof "doublefornothing."Butthefactthattheproblemis notspecificto desire
meansthatitcannot-without further argumentbe usedbycourtsto sustaintheproposition that
TitleVII coversnondesire-based harms butnotdesire-based
harms.
470. CompareVinson, 760 F.2d at 1333n.7 (notingthata bisexualharassment exemption
wouldentaila "bizarreresult"), withBriefamicuscuriaeof Catharine A. MacKinnon, at 22 n.6,
Oncalev. Sundowner Offshore Servs.,Inc.,523U.S. 75 (1998)(No. 96-568)(stating,inthecourse
ofa descriptionofthebisexualharasser, that"equaldiscrimination
is a clearoxymoron").
471. See textaccompanying note338supra.

couldnotdefend againsta same-sex sodomy chargeby sayingthathe had

alsoengaged incross-sexsodomy.Thismeansthatthere is no incentivefor
commentators tomakebisexuals visibleinthesodomy context-there is no
privilege
againstwhichcriticsmustinveigh.
ofbisexuals
Thevisibility in sexualharassmentjurisprudence also sug-
mayinsomeinstances
geststhatbisexuals be morevisibleinthelawthanin
ingeneral.Courts
society notedthebisexualpossibilityinthelate1970s,472
wellin advanceofa national bisexualmovement.473 Thisis somewhat sur-
as legalknowledge
prising, ofsexuality lagsbehindsocialknowl-
generally
edgeofsexuality.474
Theexception tothegeneral
rule,however, maybe ex-
of thelaw. The logic of the"becauseof . .. sex"
plainedby theformalism
formulation
forcedcourtsto hypothetically
envision
thebisexualharasser
longbeforehe evermadean actualappearance.Logic thusopenedup
spacesofpossibility
imaginative beforesuchspaceswerepolitically
occu-
piedinanyrobust
way.
2. (Incoherently)
closingthebisexualharassment
exemption-
bisexualinvisibility.
Onestrategy fordealingwiththebisexualharassment exemption-class

erasure-could havebeenpredicted from theprevious discussionofbisexu-
ality.WhenVinson finally
madeitswayto theSupreme Court,theCourt
statedthatdesire-basedharassment wascognizable underTitleVII.475In so
stating,theCourtimplicitly rejectedtheargument madeby then-judges
Bork,Scalia,andStarrin thatcase. Thebasisforthatrejection, however,
wasnotclear;theCourtevadedgivingonebysimply ignoringbisexuals.476
AndwhentheOncaleCourtreaffirmed thatsexualharassment wascogniza-
ble insofaras it was discrimination
"becauseof ... sex,"477
it onceagain
sidesteppedtheproblem ofthebisexualharasser by erasingbisexuality.478
The invisibility
ofbisexualityin Oncalewas particularlyironic,giventhat
JusticeScalia-who as a circuit judgehadinsisted on thevisibility
ofbi-
sexuality-wrote theopinionfortheCourt.479
472. See, e.g., Barnes,561 F.2d at 990 n.55.

473. See note 416 supra and accompanyingtext(dating inaugurationof nationalbisexual
movementto late 1980s).
475. MeritorSavingsBank v. Vinson,477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986).
476. See id. (makingno mentionof thebisexualharassmentexemption).
477. Oncale v. SundownerOffshoreServs.,Inc.,523 U.S. 75, 78-80 (1998).
478. See id. (makingno mentionof thebisexualharassment exemption).
479. Compare Vinson v. Taylor,760 F.2d 1330, 1333 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Bork, Scalia,
StarrJJ.,dissentingfromdenial of reh'g en banc) (raisingthepossibilityof thebisexual harasser),
withOncale, 523 U.S. 75 (ignoringthepossibilityof bisexualharasser).

As thecontrastbetween JusticeScalia'spositionsin Oncaleandin Vin-

sonillustrates,
elisionis nota particularly
persuasive strategyinthisareaof
jurisprudence,
as courts thathavealready confessed theexistence ofbisexu-
alityin onecasecannot denyitinanother.
logically Perhaps inrecognition
ofthis,othercircuit courts haveengagedin milderforms ofclasserasure,
engaging notin elisionbutin explicit (andincomplete) denialoftheexis-
tenceoftheclass. Thus,inHensonv. CityofDundee,480 theEleventh Circuit
statedthat"[e]xcept in theexceedingly case ofa bisexualsupervi-
atypical
sor,it shouldbe clearthatsexualharassment is discrimination basedon
sex."481That1982opinion's language aboutthe"exceedingly atypicalcase
ofa bisexualsupervisor" hasbecomea boilerplate phrasein sexualharass-
mentcases.482 Butneither theHensoncourtnoranyothercourtemploying
itsphraseeverexplains whybisexual supervisionis so rare.
In fairness
to thesecourts, actualdefendants whodeploythebisexual
harassment defense arerare.Suchdefendants appearmoreoften infiction483
or hypotheticals484
thanactuallitigation485;thedefense has beenraisedin
onlytwocasesandhasbeenrejected inboth.486Defendants mayunderstand
thatthe"doublefornothing" reasoning underlying thedefense violateseq-
uitableintuitions,487
andmayfearthatcourtswillprivilege thatintuition
abovetheexemption. Alternatively,
bisexualharassers whoself-identify as
straightmayfearcoming outas bisexualmorethantheyfearpotential liabil-
ity.Suchharassers couldrationallyassumethatthepotential stigma ofbeing
480. 682 F.2d897(11thCir.1982).
481. Id. at905n.11.
482. See,e.g.,Doe v. CityofBelleville,119F.3d563,576 (7thCir.1997)(quoting Hensonv.
Cityof Dundee,682 F.2d897,905 n.11 (1 IthCir.1982));Fredette v. BVP Management Assocs.,
112F.3d 1503,1506n.5(11thCir.1997)(same);Jonesv. Flagship Int'l,793 F.2d714,720n.5(5th
Cir.1986)(same);McCoyv. Johnson ControlsWorldServs.,Inc.,878 F. Supp.229,232 (S.D. Ga.
1995)(same);Demelev. BelleofOrleans,L.L.C., 1997WL 411558at *7 n.7 (E.D. La. July21,
1997)(same).
483. See Miller,
supranote432,at 165.
484. See,e.g.,Applebaum, supranote432,at601-02& n.1.
485. See AmicusBriefofCatharine MacKinnon, supranote470,at21-22("Theso-calledbi-
sexualharasser, eludingequalitysnaresby indiscriminately sexuallyharassing menand women
alike,stalksthejudicialimagination,cuttingquitea figureinlegalhypotheticals."(footnotes
omit-
ted)).
486. Thebisexualharasser defensehasbeenraised, butnotaccepted, intwocases. See Raney
v. District
ofColumbia, 892 F. Supp.283,287-88(D.D.C. 1995);Ryczekv. GuestServs.,Inc.,877
F. Supp.754,762 (D.D.C. 1995)(granting summary judgment todefendant on othergrounds).A
similar"equalopportunity harasser"defensehas beenraisedto no availin twoothercases. See
Steinerv. Showboat Operating Co.,25 F.3d 1459,1464(9thCir.1994);Chiapuziov. BLT Operat-
ingCorp.,826 F. Supp.1334,1336-38(D. Wyo.1993). In othercases,defendants havefailedto
raisethebisexualharasser defense whereitmight havebeenexpected.See, e.g.,Griswold v. Fre-
seniusUSA, Inc.,978 F. Supp.718,723 (N.D. Ohio 1997)(involving married manwhoallegedly
sexuallyharassedothermenandfailedtoraisebisexualharasser exemption); Hopkinsv. Baltimore
Gas & Elec.Co.,871F. Supp.822,824n.2,835(D. Md. 1994)(same).
487. Cf.Saulpaugh v. MonroeCommunity Hosp.,4 F.3d 134,144(2d Cir.1993)(noting, in?
1983context, thatitwouldtake"audacity" fora defendanttoraisea bisexualharassmentdefense).

waslessthanthedefinite
labeledharassers ofself-identifying
stigma as bi-
sexuals.488
Thefortuitythatnotmanybisexualshavepressedthedefense,however,
avoidsratherthananswers theproblem ofthebisexualharassmentexemp-
tion.Italsodoesnotsufficeinthosesituations
inwhichthedefenseis actu-
allyraised.Perhapsinresponsetobothpoints,
somecourtshaveproffered a
different
wayof dealingwiththeproblem of thebisexualharassmentex-
emption. Thisapproach,whichis ultimately
morecoherent,trades
onbisex-
ualvisibility,
rather
thaninvisibility.
3. (Coherently)closingthebisexualharassment
exemption-
bisexualvisibility
(again).
A morecoherent wayofclosing(oratleastsignificantly narrowing) the

bisexualharassment exemption notesthatwhilebisexualsmaydesireboth
menandwomen,theywillnotnecessarily manifestthatdesirein a sex-
neutralway. Thispremise significantly
mitigates the"doublefornothing"
problem,forifbisexualstreatmenandwomenin sex-differentiated ways,
theywillstillbe liableundera "becauseof. .. sex"test.Thecourts,albeitin
a haphazard andundertheorized way,havehypothesized a number ofwaysin
whichbisexualdesiremayhavesex-differentiated manifestations.In so do-
ing,theyhavesignificantly narrowed thebisexualharassment exemption by
the
making bisexual more, ratherthanless,visible.
First,some courts havestatedthata bisexualharasser willnotevadeli-
ifheonlyharasses
ability members ofonesex. In other words, theharasser
cannotescapeliability simply bydesiring bothsexes,he mustalso express
thatdesireinharassing waystoward bothsexes. Thisrequirement ofactual
harassment ofbothsexesdistinguishes thebisexualharasser exemption from
thebisexualharassment
exemption.In Raneyv. DistrictofColumbia,489
the
district
courtnotedthatBarnesv. Costle490
couldbereadas providing
forthe
formerexemption, whilethesubsequentcaseofBundy v.Jackson49'
couldbe
readas providingforthelatter.TheRaneycourtitself
readBundyas a clari-
ficationofBarnes,andthusrequired actualharassmentofbothsexes.492It
notedthatwhilethedefendant inthatcasehadraisedthedefense
thathewas
bisexual,he wasallegedtohaveonlyharassed men,andthecourttherefore
rejectedhisdefense.
488. This is particularlytruegiven that,as Colker has pointedout, an employeewho self-

identifiesas bisexual can be terminatedon thatbasis withoutincurringTitle VII liabilityforthe
employer.See Colker,BisexualJurisprudence, supra note401, at 135-36.
489. 892 F. Supp. 283, 287-88 (D.D.C. 1995).
490. 561 F.2d 983, 990 n.55 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
491. 641 F.2d 934, 942 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
492. See Raney,892 F. Supp. at 288.

Second,one courthas statedin dictathata sequential bisexualcannot

the even
deploy exemption if harasses he bothmenandwomen.In Tietgen
v.Brown 's WestminsterMotors, Inc.,493 thecourtnotedthatthebisexualhar-
assment exemption "maynotprohibit sexualharassment bya bisexualhar-
asser"insofar as oneassumes thatheorshe"chooseswhomtosolicitforsex
according to somecriteria otherthangender."494 It wenton,however, to
contest thisassumption, notingthat"itmaybe thata bisexualsolicitsa per-
sonforsexbasedontheperson'sgender, whichgender thebisexualprefers
atthatmoment."495 Thecourtthusraisedthepossibility of,forexample, an
individual whodirects hissexualattention solelyto womenfora periodof
time,thenswitches overtodirecting hisattention solelytomenfora period
oftime.496 Evenifhe harassed thesamenumbers ofmenandwomen, one
couldstillarguethatat thetimehe was harassing anyindividualman,no
womanwas in danger, andviceversa. If one acceptedthisargument, his
harassment wouldhaveoccurred "becauseof. . . sex."497
Finally,courts haveimplied thateveniftheharasser hadconcurrentsex-
ualdesireforbothmenandwomen andharassed them both,hecouldstillbe
liableifheexpressed thatdesireindifferent ways.In Chiapuzio v.BLT Op-
eratingCorp.,498 a district
courtnotedthatthedefendant's claimthatitsem-
ployeeEddieBell harassed bothmenandwomen"raisedthespecter ofthe
'bisexualharasser."'499Thecourtexorcised thatpossibility
by contending
thatalthough Bell harassedbothmenandwomen, he harassedthemin dif-
ferentways;specifically, bymaking remarks aboutsex actshe wantedto
493. 921 F. Supp.1495(E.D. Va. 1996).

494. Id. at 1501n.10.
495. Id.
496. TheWeinberg studydocumented theexistence ofbisexualswhowereattracted to one
sexortheotherdepending ontheir"mood"ata giventime.See WEINBERGET AL.,supranote113,
at 55. Onesuchbisexualstated:"I don'tthink ithasmuchtodo withpitting a good-looking man
againsta good-looking woman. I thinkit has moreto do withmyownfeelings of whether I'm
attractedtomenorwomenmoreata particular point."Id.
497. As Garbernotes,thedistinction betweensequential andconcurrent bisexualityis less
thanclear:
Cliniciansthesedaystendtocharacterize as either
bisexuality "sequential"
or"concurrent,"
depending uponwhether thesame-sex/opposite-sex aregoingon at thesame
relationships
time.Butalthough thiswillatfirst
seemusefulinmaking grossdistinctions,
itis finally
less
clearthanitappears.Foronething, what, is "thesametime"?Alternate
precisely, nights?
Thesamenight?Thesamebed?
GARBER,supranote11,at 147. Ifonecollapsesthedistinction between sequential andconcurrent
bisexualityin thisway,one can completely close thebisexualharassment exemption, butonly,
perhaps,atthecostofabsurdity.
498. 826F. Supp.1334(D. Wyo.1993).
499. Id. at 1336.

perform withwomenbutnotwithmen.500 Therefore,thecourtconcluded,

Bell'sharassment occurred "becauseof.. . sex."Sol
Chiapuziois notreallyan example ofa courtfinding a defendantliable
forconcurrently harassing both sexes ina desire-basedbutsex-differentiated
way. Thisis becausethecourtdetermined thatwhileBell's harassment of
womenwassexual,hisharassment ofmenwasnot. Thecourtthusdeemed
thatBellwasnota bisexualharasser, butrather an "equalopportunity" har-
asser-thatis,someone whoharassed bothmenandwomen, butwhodidnot
harassbothin sexualways. Indeed,thefactthatBell harassed onesexbut
nottheotherin a sexualwayprovided thesex-based distinction
neededfor
TitleVII liability.
The logic of Chiapuzio,however, may be easilyextendedto sex-
differentiated
desire-based harassment ofbothsexes. To see this,consider
thatthecourtcouldhavereasonably readBell's comments towardsmenas
beingsexualinnature, andcouldstillhavefound Bellliable.Bell'sconduct
is entirelyconsistent withwhata manwhohad desireforbothmenand
womenmightdo in a societythatstigmatized same-sex butnotcross-sex
desire-that is,express hisdesireforwomenopenly, butfindmorecloseted
waysofexpressing hisdesireformen.Evenifthecourt hadfound thistobe
thecase,however, Bell wouldstillhavebeenliable. If desire(evensex-
neutraldesire)manifests itself
ina systematically sex-differentiated
way,that
is logically
sufficienttomeetthe"becauseof. . . sex"requirement.
Theseanalytic movesdo notcompletely closethebisexualharassment
exemption-there mightbe a bisexualharasser whowas genuinely "sex-
blind"suchthatthesexofthevictim hadno salienceto him.502In sucha
case,thebisexualharassment exemption wouldstillobtain.Nonetheless,
making thebisexualmorevisiblehastheeffect ofsignificantly
narrowing the
bisexualharassment exemption. Bypainting a subtler
pictureofthebisexual,
we see thatnotall bisexuals are"sex-blind," andtotheextent thattheyare
not,theywillbe liableevenunder a "butfor"test.
C. Recognizing
and ClosingtheHorseplayExemption
Bisexualvisibility
doesnothavemuchnormative biteinthecontext of
thebisexualharassment exemption.Theexemption hasalready beenclosed
as a practical
matter;bisexualvisibility
onlyprovides a morecoherent justi-
ficationforthatclosure.In contrast,
bisexualvisibility
has significant
nor-
500. See id. at 1337-38.

501. See id.at 1338.
502. As notedabove,however,I amdubiousabouttherobustness
ofthe"sex-blind"
bisexual
category.
See notes317-319supraandaccompanyingtext.

mativeconsequences foranother exemption in thesexualharassment juris-

prudence: thehorseplay exemption.
The horseplay exemption occursin the same-sexsexualharassment
context. Theexemption ariseswhenharassers (almostinvariablymales)de-
fendagainst accusations ofhomosexual harassment byrecasting theconduct
as heterosexual horseplay.Becausethejurisprudence emphasizes sexual
overnonsexual harm,S03 thisre-characterization oftheconduct, ifsuccessful,
often absolvestheharassers ofliability.
Unlikethebisexualharassment exemption, thehorseplay exemption is
wideopenas a matter ofpractice.504 Thisdiscrepancy canbe explained by
therelationship thateachexemption hastojudicialintuitionsaboutfairness.
The bisexualharassment exemption was closedbecausethe"doublefor
nothing" problem itraisedviolated a judicialintuition
ofequity.Thehorse-
playexemption, incontrast, is consistentwithsucha judicialintuition. Spe-
cifically,theexemption reflectstheintuition thatthehomosocial and the
homoerotic aresufficiently intertwined thatambiguity shouldbe resolved in
favorof theformer, lestheterosexuals be mistakenly re-characterizedas
nonheterosexuals.Sos The statusquo in whichthebisexualharassment ex-
emption is closedwhilethehorseplay exemption remains openthusis so-
ciologicallyintelligible.
Thatstatus quo,however, alsodefieslogic.Thisis becausetherecogni-
tionand closureof thebisexualharassment exemption reliedon bisexual
visibility.Thehorseplay exemption as itnowstands, however, reliesonbi-
sexualinvisibility. Closingthebisexual harassment exemption thuslogically
requiresatleastsignificantly narrowing thehorseplay exemption.
In making thisargument, I first
examine thenature ofthejudicialintui-
tionthatkeepsthehorseplay exemption open.I thennotetheanalytic moves
thecourts maketoprotect thehorseplay exemption, pointingoutthatthese
movesrelyon bisexualinvisibility. Finally,I considerhowtheenhanced
visibility
ofbisexuality wouldforeclose thesemoves,requiring a significant
narrowing oftheexemption.
503. Somemayquestionwhether thisis stillthecase afterOncalev. Sundowner Offshore

Servs.,Inc.,523 U.S. 75 (1998). I addressthisquestion below. See notes535-549infraandac-
companying text.
504. See, e.g.,McWilliams v. FairfaxCountyBd. Of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (4thCir.
1996); Martinv. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 926 F. Supp. 1044(N.D. Ala. 1996); Tietgenv. Brown's
Westminster Motors, Inc.,921F. Supp.1495(E.D. Va. 1996).
505. Thisintuition is probably theimpetus behindthevarious"queen-for-a-day"exemptions
describedabove,in whichadventitious homosexual conduct is notseenas damagingan otherwise
heterosexualstatus.See notes100-106supraandaccompanying text.

1. Understanding
horseplay-thehomosocialand thehomoerotic.
Intimate actionsamongmenareambiguous-they canbe either homo-

socialorhomoerotic. Thisambiguity is peculiar insofar as thetwowaysin
whichitcanbe resolved arediametrical opposites.Usuallywhenan ambi-
guity mustbe resolved, thetwowaysofresolving itarequitesimilar toeach
other;indeed, itis theirsimilarity thatleadstotheconfusion. Intimate acts
amongmen,however, arenotambiguous in thisway;thesocialmeanings
andconsequences ofhomosociality aresquarely opposedtothoseofhomo-
eroticism.
Onewayofconstruing theopposition is tounderstand homosociality as a
meansofmaking men,andhomoeroticism as a meansofunmaking them.
Homosociality is a meansofmaking meninsofar as themenwhocantake
(anddishout)hazing,razzing, orhorseplay areconstituted as "real"men,
whilethosewhocannot (orwhochoosetooptout)areconstituted as "failed"
men. Theseritesare oftenexplicitly formulated as initiationswherethe
manhood ofthosehazedis tested andthemanhood ofthosehazingis reaf-
firmed.506 Evenwhentheyarenotso formulated, homosocial behaviors of-
tenperform thatfunction. Overa courseofhomosocial conduct-however
inchoate-averdict is reached as towhether thenewworker is "oneofthe
guys"ornot.507
Homoeroticism, in sharpcontrast, is a meansofunmaking men.508 As
canbe seenin theearliest formulations ofhomosexual menas "inverts"-
thatis,as womentrapped insidemen'sbodies509-a homosexual malewasa
manwhowouldrevealhimself tobe a woman(andthusa failedman).That
gaymenareviewedas failedmencanalsobe seeninthecharacterization of
failedmenas gaymen.510 In caseafter case,theworkplace outcastis cast
506. See HANK NUWER,THE DEADLY RITE OF HAZING204-06 (1990) (describinghighly

sexualizedhazingritualthroughwhichCoast Guardinitiatesare inducted-or not-into thegroup).
507. See MichaelS. Kimmel, as Homophobia:
Masculinity Fear,Shame,and Silencein the
Construction
ofGenderIdentity,
in THEORIZINGMASCULINITIES119, 128-29 (HarryBrod & Mi-
chael Kaufmaneds., 1994) ("Othermen watchus, rankus, grantour acceptanceintothe realmof
manhood.... Masculinityis a homosocialenactment.We testourselves,perfornheroicfeats,take
enormousrisks,all because we wantothermento grantus ourmanhood.").
508. This is, of course,a culturallycontingent
claim. In otherculturalcontexts,homoeroti-
cism could be seen as a means of initiatingyouthsinto manhood. See, e.g., EVA CANTARELLA,
BISEXUALITYIN THE ANCIENTWORLD 6-8 (Cormac 6 Cuilleanaintrans.,1992) (describingsuch
initiationsin ancientGreeksociety).
509. See Edwards,supra note342, at 112.
510. See Gary Kinsman,Men Loving Men: The Challenge of Gay Liberation,in BEYOND
PATRIARCHY: ESSAYS BY MEN ON PLEASURE,POWER,ANDCHANGE103, 104 (Michael Kaufman
ed., 1987) ("'Real' men are intrinsically
heterosexual;gay men,therefore,are not real men."); Jo-
seph H. Pleck,Men 's Power withWomen,OtherMen, and Society:A Men 's MovementAnalysis,in
THE AMERICANMAN 417, 424 (Elizabeth H. Pleck & JosephH. Pleck eds., 1980) ("Our society
uses themale heterosexual-homosexual dichotomyas a centralsymbolforall the rankingsof mas-
culinity,forthe division on any groundsbetweenmen who are 'real men' and have power and

as a homosexual,
"4out" ofwhether
regardless thereis evidence thathemani-
fested
anysame-sex desire.511
Thefactthatintimate intra-maleactscanbe interpretedin diametrically
opposedwaysmakesthatinterpretive actextremelyfraught.512A misreading
ofhomosociality as homoeroticismwillhavethedevastating consequence of
branding a realmanas a failedman. In resolving thatambiguity, therisk-
aversedecisionmaker willerronthesideofheterosexuality. Thistendency
couldbe defended onthegroundsthatwebelievethemajority ofthepopula-
tionto be straight.Thatdefense,however, maybe insufficient, in thatthe
courtsarenotdealing withthegeneral population,
butwiththesubsetofthat
populationwhosesame-sex conduct hasgivenrisetoa claimofharassment.
Thissuggests thatthepremiseheremaybe lessstatisticalthanequitable;
courtsmaybelievethatwhereanyambiguity exists,it is betterto letthe
homosexual
guilty go freethanto convicttheinnocent heterosexual. That
equitablepremise, however,willcreateproblems ofitsownwhenthecosts
maleswhoarenot. Anykindof powerlessness or refusalto competebecomesimbuedwiththe

imagery ofhomosexuality.").
511. See,e.g.,Johnson v. Hondo,Inc.,125F.3d408,410 (7thCir.1997)(worker's masculin-
ityimpugned byallegations ofhomosexuality, despitelackofevidenceofsame-sexdesire);Doe v.
Cityof Belleville,119F.3d 563,566-67(7thCir. 1997)(worker withearring called"queer"and
"fag"despitelackofevidence ofsame-sex desire).
512. One mightask if it is just an unfortunate coincidenceforrealmenthatthemodality
through whichrealmenconstitute themselvesandotherrealmenlooksawfully likethemodality
through whichfailedmenconstitute themselvesandotherfailedmen. I believethatitis no acci-
dent.
To see this,imaginea worldin whichsame-sexhorseplay didnotexist-wheremenconsti-
tutedthemselves andothersas realmenbyotherexisting methods-byworkperfornance, say,or
bysalary.Real mennevertouchor engagein sexualbanter.Thus,whenever a mantouchesan-
othermanorattempts sexualbanter withhim,theimport is unambiguous-that manis gay. What
do realmenlosewhentheyenter thisimaginary world?
Atleasttwothings.First, theylosetheability toappropriate thesignifierofthe"private parts"
toshowhowclosetheyareto eachother.Evenifwe assumetheabsenceofdesire,itstillmakes
sensethatmanyhomosocial hazingactivitiesinvolvemalegenitalia.Thisis becausethegenitalia
arebeingdeployedhereas signifiers of theprivate, rather thanas signifiersof sex (although of
coursetheirsignification as the"private" stemsin partfromtheiruse in sex). Whensomeone's
genitaliaare usedin a hazingritual, themessageis thatthehazedman'smostprivatepartsare
availableto themenwhohazehim. Suchhazingcan be interpreted as a fornof domination-of
forcing thehazedmantoadmitthatheis powerless tokeepthehazersfrom violatinganypartofhis
body.Oritcanbe seenas a fornofcommunity-of forcing thehazedmantoadmitthatthegroup
is so tight
thatthere is norealmofthe"private" thathecanwithhold from thegroup.In either case,
thehazedman'sconstitution as a "real"manwilldependon hisabilitytodemonstrate thathe can
survive thisincident ofpowerlessness.
Second,theylose theability toprovethattheyareso powerful thattheycan engagein taboo
activities
without suffering theconsequences ofthattaboo. Straight menmaybe mostabletocon-
stitutethemselves as straightmenwhentheyengagein homosocial activity,becausethispermits
themto demonstrate thatevenwhentheyskateveryclose to theedgeof homosexual ascription,
theyneverfalloverit. Another wayofthinking aboutthisis toconsider howtheclosetedhomo-
sexualmightbe mostafraidof engaging in "parodic"demonstrations of homosexuality, lestthat
ostensibleparody be recognized as revealing
hisunderlying homosexuality.

ofletting
a bisexualora homosexualgo freeas a heterosexual includethe
unredressed
harmshehasvisited onothers.Thisis thepreciseissueraisedin
thesexualharassmentcontext.
2. Recognizing
thehorseplay
exemption-bisexual
invisibility.
In thesame-sex sexualharassment context,courtsareoftenconfronted

withmale-on-male intimate conduct andaskedto determine whether that
conduct is homosocial orhomoerotic. Thepriority ofdesire-basedclaimsin
thesexualharassment jurisprudence meansthattheharasser willbe much
morelikely tobe liableiftheconduct is deemed sexual.Thus,thetaskofthe
courtsis doublyfraught; theyarenotonlydetermining sexualorientation,
butalsoliability. To decidethattheharassser is heterosexual
is oftensimul-
to
taneously decidethathe is notliable;todecidethattheharasser is homo-
sexualis oftensimultaneously todecidethatheis liable.
The courts'reluctance to interpretambiguous conductas homoerotic
rather
thanas homosocial is oftencarriedtoextremes;so longas theharasser
hasnotopenlyadmitted hishomosexuality orbisexuality,courtsworkfuri-
ouslytoassignhima heterosexual identity.Forexample, inMcWilliams v.
FairfaxCountyBoard of Supervisors,513
the courtnotedthatthe harassers
inthefollowing
engaged conduct:
On atleastthreeoccasions,coworkers
tiedMcWilliams' handstogether, blind-
foldedhim,andforced himtohisknees.On oneoftheseoccasions,a coworker
placedhisfingerinMcWilliams' mouth to simulate
an oralsexualact. During
anotherof theseincidents,
a coworker,Doug Witsman, and anotherplaceda
broomstickto McWilliams'anuswhilea thirdexposedhisgenitalsto McWil-
liams. On yetanother occasion,Witsman entered
thebus on whichMcWil-
liamswasworking andfondledhim.514
This conductskatesclose to violatingprohibitions
on sodomy(a quintessen-
tially sexual category)in some jurisdictions.515Nonetheless,McWilliams's
coworkerscharacterized
it as "horseplay."516
WhiletheMcWilliamscourt
didnotitselfusethischaracterization,
othercourtshavedescribed
thecon-
ductin thiscase as "razzingandhazing"517
or "merelockerroomantics,
joking,orhorseplay."518
513. 72 F.3d 1191(4thCir.1996).

514. Id. at1193.
515. Texas's sodomystatute, forexample, prohibits
same-sex"deviatesexualintercourse,"
TEX.PENALCODE ANN. ? 21.06(a)(West1994),anddefines"deviatesexualintercourse" to in-
clude"thepenetration of... theanusofanotherpersonwithan object."TEX.PENALCODE ANN. ?
21.01(1)(B)(West1994).
516. McWilliams v. Fairfax
County Bd.ofSupervisors,72 F.3d 1191,1194(4thCir.1996).
517. Fredettev. BVP Management Assocs.,112F.3d1503,1507(11thCir.1997).
518. Tietgen v. Brown'sWestminster Motors,Inc.,921 F. Supp.1495,1501(E.D. Va. 1996).

Jan.2000] BISEXUAL
ERASURE 451
Courts
rationalizetheresolution
ofambiguityinfavorofheterosexuality
in twoways. First,courtsreasonfromthepremise thattheharasserhas
manifestedcross-sexdesireto theconclusionthathe thereforeharborsno
same-sexdesire.Second,theystatethattheywillnotimpute sexualdesireto
a harasser
in thesame-sex contextunlesstheplaintiff
has actually
proven
thattheharasser
is homosexual.519To saythatthecourtsdo notmentionbi-
inmaking
sexuality eitheroftheseanalytic
movesdoesnotseemtobe say-
ingmuch.Thedamagethatbisexuality coulddo tothesemovesis nonobvi-
ous. Butwhenwe examine thesemovesmoreclosely,we see thatbothof
themcanbe deeply problematizedbybisexualvisibility.
3. Closingthehorseplay
exemption-bisexual
visibility.
Bisexualvisibilitysignificantly narrows thehorseplay exemption by
challenging thetwoanalytic movesmadetokeepitopen.Bisexualvisibility
disruptsthefirstmove-theassertion ofheterosexual statusas pre-emptive
of homoerotic conduct-because it makesthisstatusimpossible to prove
conclusively. Whentheharasser is claiming heterosexual status,all he is
reallyadducing is evidencethathemanifests cross-sex desire-that hehasa
wife,thatheis perceived as straight
bycolleagues, etc. Whentheplaintiff is
claiming thathomoerotic conduct occurred,he is imputing same-sex desire
to theharasser.In finding theseallegations tobe in tension, thecourtsare
reallysaying thatallegationsofcross-sex desireandallegations ofsame-sex
desireconflict.Butas notedabove,520 thepremise thatbisexuality exists
meansthattheharasser's allegationsofcross-sex desireandtheplaintiff's
allegationsofsame-sex desirearenotnecessarily intension.Ifboththehar-
assers allegationsofcross-sex desireandtheplaintiff's allegations
ofsame-
sexdesireareplausible, thefactfinder shouldnotassumethateither is lying
or mistaken, butrather shouldentertain thepossibility thattheyare both
right,andthattheharasser is thereforebisexual.Thisof coursemakesit
morelikelythatcourtswilldeemtheconduct to be sexual,whichin turn
makesitmorelikely thattheywilldeemittobe a TitleVII violation.
One exampleof thefirstanalytic movecan be foundin Johnson v.
Hondo,Inc.521Johnson andHicksworked inanall-male environment forthe
Coca-ColaCompany.522 Johnson's complaint allegedthatHickssubjected
himto "homosexual advances,"523including statements suchas "I'm going
519. A third strategy thatthecourtsuse is simplyto denominate theconductin questionas

horseplayby repressing thehomoeroticpossibility.Thisstrategy relieson fiatratherthanargu-
ment-thedifficult interpretiveproblemof whether thedefendant is engagedin homosocialor
homosexual behavior is wishedawayratherthanconfronted. I do notaddressitfurther
here.
521. 125F.3d408 (7thCir.1997).
522. See id.at410.
523. Id. at413.

tomakeyousuckmydick,""comedowntothecarwashandsuckmydick,"
"comeacrossthestreet
andsuckmydick,"andactionssuchas simulated
masturbation.524
Thecourtfound thatthere
hadbeennoharassmentbecauseitfound
that
Johnson's beliedhisbeliefthatHickshadmadea "homosexual
testimony
advance"onhim.525Thecourtmaintained:
Forexample, Johnsontestified
thatononeoccasion,Hicksapproachedhimand
said: "I'm goingto getmydicksucked,"and then,apparently referringto
Johnson's Hickssaid"I think
girlfriend, she'sprobably
watching TV now. I'll
go byandhavethatbitchsuckmydick." Hicksalso said,"thatbitchoughtto
be gettingintheshowerrightnow.... [T]hatredheadbitchgota niceass too.
I oughttogo getmydicksucked."Itis extremelydifficult
toreconcileremarks
suchas thesewithJohnson'sstrained
contention
thatHickswasmaking "homo-
sexualadvances"towardhim.526
The courtthus used Hicks's expressionsof cross-sex desire as negatingthe
possibility
thathe harbored same-sex desire.Thisis logicalonlyifthebi-
sexualpossibility
is elided.Ifthebisexual
possibility
is recognized,
thealle-
gations ofcross-sexdesireareirrelevant.
Forwhiletheallegationsofcross-
sex desirearguably negatetheinferencethatHicksis homosexual, theydo
notnegatetheinference thatheengaged in"homosexual advances."Andit
is thelatter,
rather
thantheformer, whichis relevant
forthepurpose ofde-
termining whetherJohnson hasa desire-based
claim. Notwithstanding this
problem, however,thelogicofJohnson hasbeenusedinother cases.527
524. Id. at410 n.1.

525. Id. at413.
526. Id.
527. InBoltv.Norfolk S. Corp.,22 F. Supp.2d512 (E.D. Va. 1997),thecourtdenieda same-
sex sexualharassment claimbecause"therecordprovides no basisforan inference thatWilliams
[thedefendant] was homosexual otherthanhisharassing conduct."Id. at 518. Evidencedrawn
from therecord fortheopposite conclusionincluded:(1) "Williams wasmarried during mostofthe
timein question";(2) "Bolt[theplaintiffl saw Williamsoutwitha womansocially";(3) "Bolt
neversaw Williamson a datewitha man";(4) "Williamsdenie[d]thathe is a homosexual and
aver[red]thathe has neverheldanysexualattraction forBolt";(5) "Boltsaidhe didnotknowif
Williamswashomosexual, orhowtotellifsomeonewashomosexual, andadmitted thathe didnot
knowwhether Williamssubjectively intended tojoke,engagein horseplay or was serious."Id. at
518-19. Thecourtthennotedthat"[t]heonlyevidenceotherthantheharassing conductitselfis a
swornaffidavit bya co-worker whoaversthathewastoldbyco-workers after
shortly joiningNor-
folkSouthern thatWilliamswashomosexual, despitethefacthewas married."Id. at 519. Itthen
notedthat"[t]hisstatement, however, wouldbe inadmissible at trialtoproveWilliamsactuallyis
homosexual." Id.
Similarly, in Gibsonv. TanksInc.,930 F. Supp.1107(M.D.N.C. 1996),thecourtrejecteda
same-sexsexualharassment claimin partdue to theabsenceof evidencethatthedefendant was
homosexual, notingthat"[i]n fact,[theplaintiffs] deposition indicatesthat[thedefendant] was
marriedduring thetimetheallegedsexualharassment occurred." Id. at 1109.
Andin Eastonv. Crossland Mortgage Corp.,905 F. Supp.1368(C.D. Cal. 1995),rev'dand
remanded on othergrounds, 114F.3d979 (9thCir.1997),thecourtfoundno sexualharassment of
thefemaleplaintiffs bytheirfemalesupervisors, notingtheabsenceof "evidencethatthedefen-
dantsarelesbians," andpointing outthat"[i]nfact,therecorddemonstrates justtheopposite."Id.

A secondstrategy
thecourts
usetocharacterize
theconduct
as horseplay
reliesonthefactthattheplaintiff
hasnotproven is homo-
thattheharasser
sexual. Thus,in McWilliamsv. FairfaxCountyBoard ofSupervisors,528
the
courtdismissed McWilliams's suitbecause"no claimis madethatany[of
theharassers] washomosexual."529 Othercourts haveapproved itsrequire-
mentthata plaintiff mustgenerally and the
plead prove homosexuality ofthe
harasserinorder toprevail ina same-sex harassment suit.530
Evenassuming a straight/gaybinary,making turnonone'ssex-
liability
ual orientationis a potentialnightmare,raising issuesofprivacy andpropri-
ety.531Andoncethebisexualpossibility is introduced, theinquirybecomes
evenmorecomplicated. In a simplestraight/gay the
regime, plaintiffs at-
tempt toprovesame-sex desirewouldbeblocked bycredible evidenceofthe
harasser'scross-sex desire.Butagain,oncethebisexualpossibility is intro-
duced,suchevidence ofcross-sex desirerepresents almost no obstacletothe
plaintiff
trying tomakeouta claimofsame-sex desire.Theplaintiff seeking
toprovethattheharasser harbored same-sex desirewouldthusbe entitled to
continue digging forthatevidence no matter howmuchevidenceofcross-
sexdesiretheharasser adduced.
To myknowledge, onlyonecourthasattached consequences toitsown
acknowledgement ofthebisexualpossibility. In thatcase,Griswold v.Fre-
seniusUSA,Inc.,532 thecourtobserved thatan allegedharasser whohadad-
ducedevidenceofcross-sex desirecouldstillhaveengagedin homoerotic
conduct.533 Basedon thisobservation, thecourtpermitted theplaintiffto
continuesearching forevidence oftheallegedharasser's bisexuality.534
Whenthebisexualharassment exemption is readagainstthehorseplay
exemption, it becomesclearthatwe cannotclosethefirst without signifi-
cantlynarrowing thesecond.Oncecourts admit inonecontext thatbisexuals
exist,theycannotthenturnaroundin another context and presume that
cross-sexdesireipsofactonegates theexistence ofsame-sex desire.If the
at 1380. Examplesdrawnfromtherecordincluded (1) "thekindsofdecorations chosenfor[one

supervisor's] birthdayparty";(2) one supervisor's
"flirtatious
questioning of theoutsideservices
employee"; (3) "numerous discussions [thesupervisors] in concerning
participated theirownand
otheremployees' heterosexualsexualexperiences";(4) theplaintiffs'
admission that"theydo not
knowif[thesupervisors] wereeveninterested inhavingsexwiththeplaintiffs, witheachother,or
iftheywerelesbians";and(5) thefactthatbothsupervisors "weremarried duringtherelevanttime
period."Id. at 1374,1380.
528. 72 F.3d 1191(4thCir.1995).
529. Id. at 1195.
530. See, e.g.,Tietgenv. Brown'sWestminster Motors,Inc.,921 F. Supp.1495,1502(E.D.
Va. 1996)(noting butwaivingrequirement).
531. See McWilliams, 72 F.3d at 1198(Michael,J.,dissenting) (describingpursuitof har-
asser's"'true'sexualorientation"as "complicated,
far-rangingandelusive").
532. 978 F. Supp.718 (N.D. Ohio1997).
533. See id.at727-28,730.
534. See id.at730.

horseplayexemptionweretobe madeconsistent withtheportrait

ofthebi-
sexualpaintedin thecontextof thebisexualharassment
exemption,many
moreputative wouldbe liable. Whether
straights conductwas nonsexual
orsexualharassment
horseplay wouldbe anissueoffact.Andintheresolu-
tionofthatissueoffact,allegedharassers
wouldno longerbe permitted
to
negatethepossibility
categorically ofhomoeroticconductsimplybymaking
plausible ofcross-sex
protestations desire.
D. SexualHarassment
at a Crossroads
I havedemonstrated
thatclosingthebisexualharassment has
exemption
implications
forthehorseplayexemption. Closingthehorseplayexemption
inturn fortherestofsexualharassment
hasimplications The
jurisprudence.
jurisprudence
is currently
ata crossroads
wherecourts mustchoosewhether
to continue desireor to breakfromthattradition
privileging a
to embrace
"becauseof . .. sex" standard
thatstopsprivileging
desire. Whilethelatter
routeclearlymakesbetter sense,it is unclearevenafterOncalethatthe
courtswilltakeit. Becauseitproblematizestheregulation
ofdesire,
bisexu-
alitycouldactas a goadthatprompts thejurisprudence
to departfromits
historical
fetishization
ofdesire.
1. Thepost-Oncale
status
quo.
In herarticle, Schultztrenchantlyarguesagainstthepre-Oncale status
quo,in whichdesire-based claimswereseenas morevalidthannondesire
basedclaims.535 The cruxofherargument is thatTitleVII prohibitsdis-
crimination onthebasisofsex;thatsexdiscrimination takesmanyforms that
havenothing todo withdesire;andtherefore thatinterpretations
ofTitleVII
thatfetishize desirewillbe underinclusive.536
Whena maleweldersabotages
a femalewelder'sequipment becausehebelievesthatwomenshouldnotbe
welders, forexample, itseemsclearthatsexdiscriminationis occurringeven
though sexualdesireis notobviously atissue. Schultzproposes thatsexual
harassment jurisprudence shouldreturn
tothestatutory language andprotect
againstanydiscrimination-sexual or otherwise-that occurs"becauseof
. .. sex."537
Thisproposalhas important consequences forsame-sexsexualharass-
ment. In thatcontext, a ruleprivilegingdesirehas thepernicious conse-
quenceof assigning differentsanctionsforthesameconduct basedon the
sexualorientation oftheharasser. Inconsidering thehorseplay exemption,I
demonstrated thatthesameconduct couldbe characterizedeitheras hetero-
535. See Schultz,supranote436.

536. See id.at 1796-1805.
537. See id.

sexualhorseplay orhomosexual harassment, andthatcourtsmadethatde-

terminationbasedon thesexualorientation oftheharasser.We also saw
that,undera desire-basedparadigm,an individualwasmuchmorelikelyto
be liableforso-calledhomosexualharassment thanforso-calledheterosex-
ual horseplay.Butthiseffectivelymeansthatthesexualorientation ofthe
partiescanbe determinative personanda gayperson
a straight
ofliability;
coulddo thesamething andbe punished Schutlz'sproposal
differently.538
foreclosesthisinequitable
result,
encouraging to redirect
courts theiratten-
tiontoconduct rather
thansimply relyingondesire-basedstatus.
As Schultz'sarticlewas goingto press,539theSupreme Courthanded
downitsdecisionin Oncale.540 The OncaleCourt'sholding is completely
consistentwithSchultz'sproposal.TheCourtnotonlystated thattheplain-
tiffmust "always prove thatthe conductat issue ... constituted'dis-
crimina[tion]
... becauseof . .. sex,"'541butalso clarified
that"harassing
conductneednotbe motivated bysexualdesireto support
an inference
of
discrimination
on thebasisofsex."542 ThustheCourtheldthatsexualhar-
assmentsubsumedall (sufficiently
severeandpervasive)
discrimination
that
occurs"becauseof . .. sex," including,
butnotlimitedto,desire-based
har-
assment.
Itwouldbe naifve,
however,
tocelebrateOncale'sholding
tooquicklyas
implementing
Schultz's
proposal.Priorcourts
haveadoptedrulesanalogous
538. Itmight fairly be askedwhether thesameactionsundertaken bya nonheterosexual anda

heterosexual aretruly the"same"conduct.After all,desirecouldbe characterized
notas a status,
butas an intent.Andtherearemultiple circumstances in whichthesameactionis treated as two
different forms ofconduct basedon intent.Iftwomenshoottheirneighbors, butone does so in-
tentionally andtheotherdoesnot,thefirst is deemedto havecommitted murder, thesecondman-
slaughter.JOSHUADRESSLER,UNDERSTANDING CRIMINALLAW ? 31.02 (1995) ("The common
law definition of'murder' is 'thekilling ofa humanbeingwithmaliceaforethought.' Manslaugh-
teris 'an unlawful killingof a humanbeingwithout maliceaforethought."'). The same act-
shootinga humanbeing-is deemedto be two legallydistinguishable conducts-murder and
manslaughter-based onsomething thatis entirely withintheindividualmind.
Thisdistinction is arguably deployed in theCourt'shypotheticalin Oncale,wheretheCourt
distinguishes betweenthecoachsmacking thebuttocks of a malefootballplayeron thefootball
fieldandsmacking thebuttocks ofa malesecretary backin theoffice.See Oncalev. Sundowner
Offshore Servs.,Inc.,523 U.S. 75, 81-82(1998). Thesmacksarethesameact,butaretreated as
twolegallydistinct forms ofconduct.Thefirst, intheCourt'sview,is clearlyhorseplay,
thesecond
is justas clearlyharassment. See id. at 81. Thedistinction between them,theCourtsays,is con-
text.See id. at81-82. Butcontext hereis shorthand fordesire-inthefirstinstancetheconduct is
readas notdesirous, intheseconditis readas theopposite.
The flawin theanalogyis thatdesireshouldnotbe equatedwithbad intent forat leasttwo
reasons.First,desiremaynotalwaysbe within individualcontrol.Second,desirecanbe seenas
havingmanypositiveaspects,suchthataddingdesireto an otherwise acceptableactdoes notin
itselfmakeitworse.
539. See Schultz, supranote436,at 1683n-t.
540. 523 U.S. 75 (1998).
541. Id. at81.
542. Id. at80.

456 STANFORDLAWREVIEW [Vol. 52:353
onlyto havethemignored
to Oncale'sholding or undermined in practice.
As Schultznotes,543 heldinthe1985case ofMcKinney
theD.C. Circuit v.
Dole544that
harassment
couldbe cognizable TitleVII evenifitdidnot
under
involve"sexual advancesor ... otherincidentswithclearlysexual over-
tones."545
TheMcKinney
courtfound
that"anyharassment
orother
unequal
treatment
... thatwouldnotoccurbutforthesex of theemployeeor em-
ployeesmay,ifsufficiently
patterned orpervasive,
comprise an illegalcon-
ditionofemploymentunderTitleVII."546Sevenothercircuits
adopted ana-
loguesofthisrule,547
whichsoundsremarkably liketheruleadoptedin On-
cale.
TheMcKinney rule,however, hashadlittleinfluence.548
Somesubse-
quentcourtshaveoutright ignoredit. Othercourtshaveundermined itby
recognizing
bothsexualharmandnonsexual harm,butby privileging the
formeroverthelatter.Inotherwords,whiletherulearticulated
inMcKinney
madeitclearthatbothnonsexual andsexualharmswerecognizable, itleft
openthequestionoftherelativeemphasis courtsshouldplaceon eachkind
ofharm.Courtswerethusnotconstrained bytheMcKinney rulefrom con-
toprivilege
tinuing desire.
Althoughtheauthority oftheSupreme Courtmakesitunlikely thatthe
Oncaleholdingwillbe ignored,itcouldbe undermined in exactlytheway
thattheMcKinney rulewas undermined. Indeed,thenormsarticulated by
theOncaleCourtseemalmostto invitea continued fetishization
ofdesire.
Thiscanbe seenin itsdiscussions
ofthetworequirements fora successful
sexualharassment
claim:the"becauseof . .. sex" requirement
and the"se-
verityandpervasiveness" requirement.
In enunciating its"becauseof. . . sex"requirement,theCourtbeganby
statingthat"[c]ourts andjurieshavefoundtheinference of discrimination
easyto drawinmostmale-female sexualharassment situations,
becausethe
challengedconduct typically
involves explicit
orimplicitproposalsofsexual
it is reasonable
activity; to assumethoseproposals wouldnothavebeen
madetosomeone ofthesamesex."549 TheCourthereprivileged thedesire-
basedroutetoproving sexdiscriminationby:(1) characterizing
desire-based
conductas the"typical" formof male-female harassment (withoutnoting
thatitmaybe typical onlybecauseofthehistorical fetishization
ofsexuality
bythecourts); and(2) noting thattheinference ofdiscrimination
is "easyto
draw"incontexts where desireis present.
543. See Schultz,supranote436,at 1733.

544. 765F.2d 1129(D.C. Cir.1985).
545. Id. at1138.
546. Id.
547. See Schultz,supranote436,at 1733n.250.
548. See id.at 1732-38.
549. Oncalev. Sundowner Offshore Servs.,Inc.,523U.S. 75,80 (1998).

TheCourtalsoappeared
toprivilege
desire-based
claimsinitsdiscussion
ofthe"severity
andpervasiveness"
requirement.It noted:"A professional
football
player's
workingenvironment
is notseverelyorpervasively
abusive
... ifthecoachsmackshimon thebuttocks
as he headsontothefield-even
if thesamebehavior wouldreasonablybe experiencedas abusiveby the
coach'ssecretary
(maleorfemale)backattheoffice."550
Butifthesmackof
a football's
player'sbuttockssoundsdifferent
fromthesmackof a secre-
tary'sbuttocks
becausetheformersmackslessofsexuality,
thissuggests that
conductis morelikelyto be deemedsevereandpervasive if it is desire-
based.
Thus,whiletheSupreme Courtexplicitly
heldthatbothdesire-based
harmsandnondesire-based harmsshouldbe cognizable,
itarguably contin-
uedto privilege
desire-based
harmsovernondesire-based ones. Whatwill
stoplowercourtsfromdoingthesame?
2. Bisexuality
as goad.
Bisexualitymaybe deployed tohelpthecourts downtheright pathafter

Oncale. I earliernotedthatthetendency ofbisexualityto confusesexual
orientationcategories
hadpro-gay deployments. Onesuchdeployment was
thatbisexuality couldthreaten straights withfallingintothestigmatized
category ofbisexuality.551
Thetheory wasthatthemorelikelystraightswere
tobe threatened withhomoerotic ascription,thelesslikelytheywouldbe to
assignliability
tothatascription.
Onewaytoseehowthisworks is toaskwhytheCourtis so surethatthe
coachsmacking thefootball playeronthebuttocks as he headsoutontothe
fieldis engagedinhorseplay. Theanswerseemstobe thatthisis football;
thatsomehomosocial actsareso transparently homosocial thattheycannot
be readanyother way. But this,as wehavealready seen,is simplyuntrue-
thehomosocial andthehomosexual areinextricablyintertwined.Anyone
whothinks thatfootball
is alwayshomosocial needstoreviewhisTennessee
Williams.552 Thebisexualpossibility powerfully
exposestheillogicofthis
conclusory defense.
Whenthatdefenseis stripped away,it becomesclearthatthereason
footballcannotbe homoerotic is thatsomehomosocial actsareso valuedthat
theycannotafford tobe taintedwithhomosexuality.553 Thus,evenifambi-
550. Id. at81.

552. See generallyTENNESSEEWILLIAMS,CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF (1955) (play turning on
thehomoeroticundertones of "homosocial"interactions
betweenfootballplayers).
553. Anotherexample of thisdynamicmightbe theNationalOrganizationof Women's hos-
tilitytowardlesbians in the 1970s. See BARRYD. ADAM, THE RISE OF A GAY AND LESBIAN
MOVEMENT97 (rev. ed. 1995) (notingthen-President BettyFriedan's descriptionof lesbians as a

guitybetween thehomosocial andthehomosexual is recognized atonelevel,

itmustberepressed onanother.
Butthisanswer-that whilethehomosocial/homosexual binary is intrin-
sicallyunstable, straightsdesperately tryto preserve its stability-should
serveas a clueforthosearguing againsttheregulation ofdesire.Forifthat
binarycan be shownto be so unstable thatself-identified heterosexuals
themselves becomethreatened withpotentialhomoerotic ascription,theytoo
willhaveaninvestment innothaving on
turn orientation.554
liability
Thisis bisexuality's finalandmosttentative critique of sexualharass-
mentlaw. By destabilizing thehomosocial/homoerotic binary,bisexuality
revealsthatsexuality is so fluidthatheterosexuality is impossible toprove.
thereaction
Historically, tothebisexualthreat hasbeenrepression, butbi-
sexualvisibilityhas becomesufficiently greatthatthisrepression has be-
comemoredifficult. Increased bisexual makesthedeployment
visibility ofa
desire-basedparadigm moreriskyforstraights, whowill encounter chal-
lengesnotonlytotheirconduct (horseplay)butalso to theirstatus(hetero-
sexual). To theextentthatself-identified straights have investments in
keeping thosestatuses immured from scrutiny,a different form ofrepression
is inorder.Itis nownotthebisexual, butdesireitself, thatmustbe abjured.
In sexualharassment jurisprudence,thismeansthatthecourts maywishto
leavethepaththeyhavebeenon,shifting from a desire-based paradigm of
sexualharassment toa broader "becauseof... sex"paradigm.
E. OtherApplications
Althoughbisexuals
aremostvisibleinsexualharassment jurisprudence,
bisexuality's toeffect
potential changesindoctrine is notlimitedtothatarea.
I do nomorethantouchontwoother areasinwhichitmight makea differ-
ence-the"don'task,don'ttell"policyandsame-sex marriage.
The"don'task,don'ttell"policyraisesissuesanalogous tothoseinthe
sexualharassmentcontext
inthatindividual liability
turns onsexualorienta-
tion.Anindividualdeemedhomosexual willbe evictedfrom themilitary
if
he engagesin homosexualconduct, suchas same-sex sodomy.555 An indi-
vidualdeemed heterosexual,
however, canengageintheexactsameconduct,
"lavendermenace"to thefeminist movement); ROSALINDROSENBERG,DIVIDED LIVES: AMER-

ICANWOMENIN THE TWENTIETHCENTURY208 (1992) (describing Friedan'sviewthat"NOW
couldnotsurvive ... iffeminismwasidentified
withlesbianism").
554. Whilethisstrategy is admittedly
speculative,it has parallelsin theracecontextin the
ante-bellumera. As ArielaGrossobserves,abolitionists
andfugitive slaveswritingin theNorth
usedcasesin whichindividuals whoappeared"white"wereenslavedtobringhomethehorror of
slaverytowhiteaudiences.See ArielaGross,Litigating
Whiteness, 108YALE L.J.109,127(1998).
Suchaccounts weremeanttoencourage "whitereaderstoimagine themselves intheenslaved[per-
son's]shoes."Id.
555. See 10U.S.C.A.? 654(b)(1)(West1994).

andnotbe so evictedunderthe"queenfora day"exemption.556 Here,the

heterosexual ascriptionperforms an even more powerful rolebecauseitpro-
tectsindividuals evenfrom theconsequences oftheir concededly homoerotic
(ratherthanhomosocial) acts. No oneis arguing thatsame-sex sodomyis
simply heterosexual horseplay, butsodomy willnothaveconsequences for
theindividual whocanprovethatheis "heterosexual." Again, sexual orien-
tationstatusdefinesliability.Again,thereis no reasonwhybisexuality
couldnotdestabilize thosestatuses insucha wayas to forcestraights toin-
terrogatesucha desire-based paradigm.
Atthispoint, a bisexualactivist might comment onthefactthatthetwo
examples I havethusfaradduced-sexual harassment and"don'task,don't
tell"-linkincreased bisexualvisibility toincreased bisexualliability.How
shouldbisexuals feelaboutthefactthattheyarebeingrendered morevisible
simply tobe heldmoreaccountable? Is thisdeployment ofbisexualvisibil-
itytrulypro-bisexual? Or is itpro-gay andanti-bisexual? Insofar as these
examples areconcerned, itwouldcertainly seemthatbisexuals arebeingde-
ployedeither tooutself-identified straightsas bisexuals ortothreaten them
withbeingouted.Ofcourse, as canbe seenfrom thegaycontext, outing is
notnecessarily againsttheinterests ofthegroupintowhichtheindividual is
outed:evenwhencostlytotheindividuals involved, ithasbeenviewedby
manyas beneficial tothecommunity at large.557It might be helpful, how-
ever,tothink ofa legalinstance inwhichbisexualvisibility might actually
redound tothebenefit oftheindividual bisexuallitigant.
Marriage maybe suchan example.Bothgaysandbisexualscanargue
thatthecross-sex requirement ofmarriage violatessexdiscrimination norms
becauseit permits one sexbutnottheotherfrom marrying members of a
givensex. Thebisexual, however, might express an additional harm.This
harmis thatthestateis contributing tosex-consciousness in society bydis-
tinguishing inthiswaybetween menandwomen.Forthesex-blind bisexual,
thisconsciousness is in itselfa harm, becauseit impedesherfromseeing
"through" sextoother traitsthatshemayfindmoreimportant. Becausethe
homosexual, justas muchas theheterosexual, doesnotpurport tobe blindto
sexinthisway,thisis nota harm thathewilladduce.558
The claimthatthestateharmsthebisexualby forcing herto viewthe
worldthrough thelensofsexis,ofcourse, a rather utopian one. Thisis es-
556. See 10 U.S.C.A. ? 654(b)(1)(A)-(E) (West 1994).
557. See, e.g., WARRENJOHANSSON& WILLIAMA. PERCY, OUTING: SHATTERINGTHE
CONSPIRACYOF SILENCE229 (1994) (notingthatwhileoutingimpingeson an individual'sprivacy,
itsneteffectscan be beneficialforthegroup).
558. Thereis anotherdistinction betweensexual harassmentand "don't ask, don't tell" on the
one hand and marriageon theother. While sexual harassmentand "don't ask, don't tell" primarily
implicatebisexuality'sinfluenceon normsof sexual orientation,the marriagecontextprimarily
implicatesbisexuality'sinfluenceon normsof sex. This is because themarriagecontextis one that
technicallydiscriminateson thebasis of sex ratherthanon sexual orientation.

peciallytruegivenmyexpressed doubtas to whetheranybisexualtrulyis

sex-blind.559Yeta bisexualcouldrespondbynoting thatevenifsheis not
completelysex-blind,shehasa right
toaspiretoloweringthesalienceofsex
in herlife. She couldalso attempt
an analogytorace,notingthattheSu-
premeCourthasownedtheAmerican judiciary's notto increase
obligation
race-consciousnessinsociety.560
CONCLUSION
"We havenotyetreacheda point,"Garbernotes,"though nothing is

unimaginable, at whichmonosexuals, hetero-andhomo-,bandtogether to
staveofftheadvancement ofbisexuals."561 Thisarticlehasarguedthatwe
haveactuallyneverleftthatpoint. It has maintained thatbisexuality is
erasedbecauseself-identified straights
andself-identified
gayshaveentered
intoan epistemic contract
ofbisexualerasure.Andithassuggested thatthe
risingvisibility
ofbisexuality mighthavetransformative consequences for
howwethink aboutsexualorientation politics
andlaw.
Thestrength ofthishypothesis willdependin parton itsability to ex-
plaintheerasure ofbisexuality indailylife.I thusendwhereI began,with
theanecdote ofmyownerasure ofbisexualsinmyseminar onsexualorien-
tation.Do theexplanations I provideintuitively
explainwhythaterasure
occurred? In onesense,theanswer mustbe no. I do notthink thatI erased
bisexualsbecauseofa fearofnotbeingabletoprovemyorientation, orout
ofa fearoffailing toretain sexas an important diacritical
axis,oroutofa
fearofnonmonogamy. Rather, myerasure canbe mosteasilyexplained by
thefactthatbisexuality
is notpartofourcultural orsemantic stock:itis dif-
ficult
constantlytoreadcases,articles,orpopular accountsthaterasebisexu-
als without
following suit.Butthisjustdisplaces thequestion fromtheindi-
vidualleveltothecultural level,foritis ultimately
notthatinterestingsim-
plytopointoutthatindividuals erasebisexualsbecausetheybelongto cul-
turesthatdo. Andwhenthequestion arisesof whatculturalinvestments

560. See, e.g.,AdarandConstructors, Inc.v. Pena,515 U.S. 200, 228-29(1995) (approving
prioropinionthatcriticized affirmativeactionprogram fordelaying "'thetimewhenracewillbe-
comea truly or at leastinsignificant,
irrelevant, factor"')(quotingFullilovev. Klutznik,448 U.S.
448, 545 (1980) (Stevens,J.,dissenting));Shawv. Reno,509 U.S. 630,657 (1993) (warning that
"[r]adicalgerrymandering, evenforremedial purposes... threatens to carryus furtherfromthe
goalofa politicalsystem inwhichraceno longermatters-agoalthattheFourteenth andFifteenth
Amendments embody, andto whichtheNationcontinues to aspire");Cityof Richmond v. J.A.
CrosonCo., 488 U.S. 469,495 (1989) (criticizing "[t]hedissent'swatered-down versionofequal
protection review"forensuring "thatracewillalwaysbe relevant in American life,andthatthe
ultimate goal of eliminat[ing] fromgovernmental
entirely decisionmaking suchirrelevant factor's
as a humanbeing'srace,willneverbe achieved" (citation
omitted)).
561. GARBER,supranote11,at80.

might leadtotheerasure ofbisexuals, I believetheinvestments I havede-

scribedgaininplausibility.
Thedegreetowhichthehypothesis ofthisarticleis heldaccountableto
livedexperience deserves moreglobalcomment.Colleagueshaverepeat-
edlynotedthisarticle'sobsessionwithlogic-itsinsistence on analyzing
bisexualityin strictlyCartesian terms.Thatobservation hasoften beenac-
companied bytheexhortation togivelesstothereader'sheadandmoreto
herexperience. Theimplication oftheexhortation is thatthelogicalaccount
ofbisexualityleavessomething important aboutbisexuality unconsidered.
Thisis doubtless true.Thelogicalapproach ofthearticle maybereadas
compensation fortheoften parlously imprecise terms inwhichdebatesabout
sexualityingeneral andbisexuality inparticularareconducted. Yetthefact
thatitmayalsobe readas overcompensation is important. Sexualidentity
hasalwaysstruck meas a kindofillogic,giventhatsexuality is sucha pow-
erfulsolventofidentity, a modality thatexpandstheconsciousness through
shockandsurprise. Ifthisis right,thenbisexualitymaybe thesexualiden-
titythatbestreflects theoxymoronic natureofall sexualidentity, as
insofar
too,is a contradiction,
bisexuality, a classanditsowndissolution. Thismay
explainwhyexplanations ofbisexuality thatseektotamebisexuality within
theboundsofCartesian reasonwillalwaysfeelanxiously incomplete.
But thishas consequences forthelaw,whichis oftena projectthat
privilegessuchreason. It maymeanthatif we are concerned aboutthe
"logical"regulation of sexuality as failingto respectsexuality's fluidand
narrativenature,we might do worsethantobeginbylookingat thesexual
identity-bisexuality-that bestrepresents thatnature.Properly harnessed,
bisexuality's
destabilizingforcemaybe a powerful meansofcontesting that
regulation.


Yoshino - The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Yoshino - The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Yale Law School

Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository

The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers

In thisarticle,Professor KenjiYoshino seeksto explainwhythecategory

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

INTRODUCTION ..... 356

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

Teachinga seminar on SexualOrientationandtheLaw,I facedan old

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

view-powerful inmodemAmerican culturefromatleastthepublication of

6. ALFRED C. KINSEY, WARDELLB. POMEROY,CLYDE E. MARTIN& PAUL GEBHARD,

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

suchas "IsX straight orgay?"without instinctivelyfeelingas ifanimportant

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

categories.18Yeta manwhois attracted towomenandintersexed individu-

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

fense.24Thedefense is purelypragmatic-bisexuals aresimplynotcurrently

24. See, e.g., JUDITHBUTLER, GENDER TROUBLE: FEMINISMAND THE SUBVERSIONOF

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

vestments in thaterasure.It is as ifthesetwogroups, despitetheirother

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

endangers all oftheseinterests becauseitpositsa worldinwhichsexneed

I. THE ERASUREOF BISEXUALS

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

thatmustbe proven rather

26. Itmayseemstrange thatI define"bisexual before

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

29. JEFFREYWEEKS, SEXUALITY1 (1986); see also JEFFREYWEEKS, SEXUALITYAND ITS

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

37. SEDGWICK, supranote4, at202-03(footnotes omitted).

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

alitywithin their interdictions

43. See note39 supra.

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

Sucha demonstration is easilymade. On-linesearchesforthewords

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

hasarguedthatbisexuals areinvisiblenotonlyrelative tostraights,

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

I discussthedefinition ofbisexuality withsomecarebecausethevalidity

71. GARBER, supranote11,at 16 (quotingconventional

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

mizesthenumber ofpersons erasedbutonlybyraisingthethresholdofdefi-

supranote4, at 1 (usingtheseterms indiscussing thedefinitions

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

This arrayappearsso vertiginously diversethatit mightfairly be asked

78. Cf id. at 31 (speculatingabouttheusefulnessof usingthesingleterm"bisexuality"to de-

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

of bisexualityin the transmission of the HumanImmunodeficiency Virus

86. See GARBER, supranote11,at30.

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

identitysincetheyarenotbeingdeniedall satisfactory interpersonalsexual

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

HereI choosea narrow viewofbisexuality. I do nottakethisposition

95. See 1 MICHEL FOUCAULT,THE HISTORYOF SEXUALITY:AN INTRODUCTION157-59

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

anindividual mayreceive thesamepenalty fora singlehomosexual experiencethathewould

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM

Theseexemptions canbe readas precluding aberrant actsofsame-sex desire

Howdo themajorsexuality studies

107. See notes100-106supraandaccompanying text.

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.76 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:33:04 PM