Bi America: Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community

by William E. Burleson

Gain an in-depth understanding of the unique struggles of the bisexual community!

To me the gay and straight worlds are exactly the same; equally limited, judgmental, and bourgeois . . . just mirror images of each other. I truly like and overlap with some of the gay world, but my roots refuse to take hold there and grow. Unfortunately, my well-established roots in the straight world are simultaneously shriveling and dying too, leaving me feeling extremely unstable.
Cool, a bisexual woman involved in a support group

There are at least five million bisexual people in America, generally invisible to straight society, the gay community, and even to each other. While the vast majority of these five million live within the straight or gay world, there are a few who have formed a community of their own. Bi Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community offers an inside look at the American bisexual community and gives an understanding of the special circumstances unique to being bisexual. The book takes the reader to bi community events from picnics, to conferences, to support groups, to performances in order to expose the everyday trials of the bisexual community.

Bi America includes very personal stories that let the voice of everyday bisexuals be heard through interviews, the Bisexual History Project, in which ten bisexual people tell their life stories, and the Online Support Group, a group of about 75 people who meet in cyberspace to talk about their lives and challenges. The book also includes the findings of a 2002 survey of about 300 bisexual people conducted via the Internet, an appendix that offers a concise list of resources for further study and personal enrichment, and an unabridged transcript of the Bisexual History Project.

Get the answers to these questions in Bi Bi America is a fascinating resource that exposes the challenges, struggles, and triumphs of bisexuals in America. Bisexuals, especially those newly coming out, can use this book to help understand their identity, and family members and friends seeking some insight into the unique circumstances faced by their loved ones will also find it helpful. This book will interest those concerned with the sociology of deviance or with subcultures in general. It is also appropriate for undergraduate sociology and cultural anthropology, as well as feminist studies and LGBT studies classes. This book offers one of the few accessible, nonacademic looks at this unique and interesting community. Visit the book's Web site at

Genres: Nonfiction, Bisexual, LGBT, Queer, Sexuality, Sociology, Politics

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[kory. · Rating 2 out of 5]

this book is a hit if you’re looking for bi 101 that introduces you to topics such as: queer sexuality/gender in general, the aids crisis and how it affected bisexuals, the creation and growth of the bisexual community/activism, the bisexual/lesbian tension and why there doesn’t seem to be the same for bisexual/gay, common bisexual myths/stereotypes and bisexual/transgender solidarity. but if you’re well versed in those things and/or don’t want to put up with early 2000s dated language/ideas, then this book might be a miss.

content/trigger warnings; biphobia, homophobia, lesbophobia, transphobia, trinary of sexuality rhetoric, binary/cissexist language, ableism, f slur, suicide, bullying, physical violence, hiv/aids, intersex-phobia, medical abuse, polyamphobia, sex, hate crimes, murder,

for me, it’s a miss. and i’m disappointed about it. i expected it to be more aware and inclusive than it is, but it reads the same language-wise as bi books i’ve read from the ‘80s and ‘90s. transgender people are mentioned throughout, but transgender is used as a catchall that includes nonbinary folks, who are only mentioned once in the transgender chapter.

bisexual is the only mspec identity mentioned throughout the entire book, and bisexual is used as a catchall for anyone who has any attraction to or involvement with more than one gender (which i will get into in detail). like shiri eisner, this author adds bisexuality to problems instead of actually challenging what’s wrong in the first place (such as criticizing the gay/straight binary only to propose a gay/straight/bi trinary).

there’s maybe two instances of “regardless of gender” and “people not gender” but as i’ve noted in other books, it’s still in terms of binary gender, which isn’t relatable to me or reflective of what i use phrases like that to express. (as it’s noted in the book; you can use inclusive language without actually being inclusive, such as a queer outlet adding bisexual to their name but not actually creating content for bisexuals or seeking out bisexuals to create that content.)

and i know some people might be thinking, “it’s a bi book, you can’t expect it to be about everyone”, but 1) fuck you. 2) the book touches plenty on gay and lesbian. 3) if the book categorizes everyone attracted to or involved with people of more than one gender as bisexual, regardless of self-identification, the book is inherently about more than just bisexual people. 4) other sexualities and labels need to be taken into consideration in your understanding, analysis, theories about sexuality, otherwise it’s incomplete and misinformed.

my biggest issue with this book is the lens through which sexuality is looked at, and how inconsistent the author is with it. the author talks about the different models of sexuality (which i can’t stand) and how there are three axes to orientation (behavior, attraction, and self-identity), but ultimately waffles between saying behavior doesn’t equal identity and categorizing people based on their behavior. the dreaded “behaviorally bisexual” is used a lot. i hate this so much because self-identification is everything to me. people are what they say they are, period. to say there are mutually exclusive, inherent labels for behavior or attraction is very wrong. our attraction is what it is when it is it, but what we call it is a choice. we have created these labels, they are not innate to anything.

the author argues that because bisexual can mean very different things to people who identify as it, bisexual “must be” a catchall term for everyone who isn’t gay/lesbian or straight. but that’s an odd conclusion to me. shouldn’t the conclusion be “because there aren’t understandings, experiences, behaviors, or feelings that are consistent among or inherent and exclusive to bisexual people, it’s not those things that make someone bisexual, it’s the fact that they self-identify as bisexual”?

someone is quoted as saying considering only self-identity is a “mistake in that it removes too many who would identify as bisexual if it were not a stigmatized identity” but all queerness is stigmatized in a way that prevents some people from embracing it? and you can’t decide who “would” identify as bisexual or what someone’s reason is for not identifying as bisexual. we can’t consider people bisexual just because they might or could identify that way. that’s not how it works.

this ties into how the author later says that when counting how bisexuals there are, we “have to” look at those who “behave bisexually” (who “obviously make up a larger group”) and those who identify as bisexual. this to me says you care more about your “numbers” being high than being honest and respecting people’s identities. any survey/statistic that says there are x numbers of bisexuals that includes more than those who identify as bisexual is false and purposeful inflation.

on the flipside, i really love one definition of bisexual quoted that ends with “and self-identifies as bisexual”. i feel like that’s something we need to do more often. not everyone who “fits” a definition is of that sexuality or identifies that way. some people see a definition and just apply it to everyone who, to their knowledge, “fits” it. but we can’t apply labels to other people, especially not in a generalized way like this. acknowledging that labels are a choice people make for themselves *in the definition of the labels* is actually really fucking helpful and important.

other notes:

the author says “with great trepidation i have chosen to accept they and their as newly crowned singular pronouns. i would rather suffer the slings and arrows of language purists than use him or her or he or she and leave out the transgender community.” and i feel like that shows ignorance. great trepidation? newly coined? language purists? come on. the author says it’s “too soon to recover” queer, which was actually reclaimed community wide in the ‘80s. there’s also this vibe that bisexuals are more openminded or progressive than gays and lesbians.

when musing about why some people who “have or have had sex with people of more than one gender” don’t call themselves bisexual, the author ignores other labels, the fact that some people don’t label themselves at all, and behavior (past and present) doesn’t equal identity. the only reason the author entertains is barriers to accessing bisexual, such as education, biphobia, culture, etc. even when mentioning “personal agency” later in regard to choosing a label, he only talks about how he uses bisexual out of stubbornness from being told he can’t like men and women. nothing about the personal agency of folks who “could” identify as bisexual but don’t.

the author says it’s “easy and practical” and “often or usually right” to assume two guys or two women in a relationship are gay or lesbians and a guy and woman in relationship are straight, but that it makes bisexuals invisible. but it doesn’t erase just bisexuals. that mindset negatively affects non-bi mspec people, aspec people, queer people, unlabeled people, closeted gay/lesbian folks, single queer people, nonbinary people, non-passing trans people. this also plays into the “adding bisexuality to issues instead of challenging them”.

the author accuses a bisexual man of having internalized homophobia because he likes fucking men but prefers relationships with women. on screen or explicit canon bisexual rep is important and needed, but not every mspec character who doesn’t use the word bisexual is an example of bi erasure/invisibility, so please stop accusing every movie with characters like that of being biphobic.

the author supports the notion that mspec people (and closeted gays/lesbians) have “straight privilege”. but let me just say, “privilege” hinging on the erasure of your identity, and that can be taken away upon the awareness of your identity, is not “privilege”. only straight people have straight privilege. this concept only hurts queer people and portrays them as less oppressed than other queer people, or even the oppressors of other queer people.

that said, there are some quotes i like:

“none of these matters are trivial. language is important, particularly when language has the power to intellectually delegitimize a whole community.”

“first, many other factors shape people’s sexuality—and sexual identity—besides biology, including culture and psychology. second, and more important, we as a society must ask ourselves, what does it matter? in other words, what if a person could ‘help it’? would it then be wrong to be lesbian, or gay, or bisexual? certainly not.”

“i would suggest there is no need to call into question the imperative nature of sexual orientation but instead to broaden it.”

“unfortunately, it is also a common human trait to generalize or project our experiences onto other people. therefore, ‘i thought for a time i was bi before coming out as gay’ becomes ‘all bisexuals are lesbians or gays who are in the process of coming out.’ again, we are human; we are all different. no one experience fits all of us. although a lot of people identify as bisexual for a time before coming out as gay or lesbian, many other bisexuals will always identify as bisexual.”

“there are so many bi-identified artists now that just get lumped in with gay/lesbian artists, and there needs to be more respect for people’s self-identification.”

“while there certainly are people who knew all along their words and actions didn’t match their feelings, there are many more whose orientation evolves and reveals itself over time.”

“i would suggest this is one criterion for being part of a community: that you feel part of it. other people may assign a person to a community, which could have the effect of reinforcing or even creating a person’s allegiance to it, but ultimately a person has to feel part of a community to truly be part of it.”

“for me, if the label bi curious works for an individual, i say, good for them. that may be difficult for many in the bi community, but it seems a little strange to me to become judgmental about other people’s sexuality.”

[Robyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars // Read in 2022, and found it to be a bit dated (unsurprisingly).

[Justine · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting, thought-provoking read. The writer is primarily concerned with whether a bisexual community exists, and whether the general perception and misconceptions of bisexuality have suppressed or enabled the formation of a community.

I agree with the hypothesis that the invisibility we often have, plus the disdain that's felt from both heterosexual and homosexual spaces, has driven people to develop their own bisexual communities. I also agree that as times change and spaces open up to bisexuality (plus as future generations become less interested in labels to a certain extent) the need for bisexual-only communities seems to be lessening. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, though, and I agree with the author that the advent of the internet has had significant positive impact on the creation of not only online but also in-person bisexual communities.

Though I was familiar with the misconceptions and prejudices that are often levied towards bisexuals, I've never necessarily felt as though I've wanted a face to face community of bisexual peers. That said, I also know that meeting more people who identified as bisexual was positive and exciting. I'm glad that things are improving in the LGBT community overall as it pertains to acceptance.

Overall, I'd recommend this, but you should also know going into it that it is somewhat dense (it is research-based non-fiction, a ter all!)

[Ellie]

Fascinating book in pursuit of the bisexual community, ultimately ending on the depressing note that there isn't much of a "community," per se. Nonetheless a good book, although the first three chapters are a bit dull, focusing on defining bisexuality, re-defining it, discussing how the definitions suck, but why we use them anyways, and then finally, defining it *again.* Not a light read.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best and only book about the bisexual community (or lack thereof) I've ever read. If you have ever wondered why bisexuals can be hard to find, how they interact with the LGBT/straight world, and the realities of bi life, then this is the book for you. The writing veers between social science and lighthearted personal experience, making it easy and informative to read.

[Mariah · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best books on bisexuality I've seen- both introduces the subject, and myth-debunking, as well as going into depth
relationship to straights, gays, lesbians, and transgendered, monogamy vs. polyamory
Includes interviews from a variety of bisexuals.