Bisexuality as a Unique Social Problem

Abstract

Academics have studied the nature and effects of prejudice and discrimination against sexual minorities for several decades (Flowers and Buston 2001; Page and Shapiro 1992). This research has shown that their lives have often been defined by social marginalization (Herek 2004). Minority stress theory is one way of under-standing the damaging consequences of being a sexual minority (Meyer 2003). It contends that sexual minorities experience chronic stress that stems from stigma-tization in the broader culture, including psychological burdens distinct from heterosexual populations (Hatzenbuehler 2009). This is supported by a body of research highlighting elevated psychosocial problems for sexual minorities com-pared to heterosexuals (e.g. D'Augelli et al. 2001). The prejudice against sexual minorities has largely been conceptualized as ho-mophobia (Weinberg 1972). Research on homophobia has tended to focus on: (1) the prevalence of homophobic attitudes and behaviors among individuals and within institutions; (2) its negative impact on sexual minorities; (3) the mechanisms by which it is reproduced; and (4) the impact on heterosexuals. While the term is not without its limitations, it has proven effective in analyzing a range of attitudes and behaviors that pertain to the negative treatment of sexual minorities (see McCormack and Anderson 2014a). One of the key benefits of the term homophobia is that it refers to both attitudes and behaviors (Plummer 1999). Given that public attitudes play a key role in determining legislation, homophobia has historically been enshrined in public policy (Burstein 1998). Attitudes are thus vital, yet researching them is complex, as they can pertain to sexual acts, individuals and sexual identities, personal morality and civil rights (Avery et al. 2007; Loftus 2001). Herek (2004) argues that the term homophobia helped change the framing of anti-gay prejudice by " locating the 'problem' of homosexuality not in homosexual people, but in heterosexuals who were intolerant of gay men and lesbians " (p. 8). While he also critiqued it for its psychological implications, alternative terminology encounters similar definitional problems. Anti-gay can be deemed to exclude other © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 E. Anderson and M. McCormack, The Changing Dynamics of Bisexual Men's Lives, Focus on Sexuality Research, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29412-4_4 49 sexual minorities, and anti-homosexual bias additionally relies on the medicalized term homosexual (Plummer 1999). While prejudice and stigma account for atti-tudinal components, they do not incorporate behavioral ones (Rivers 2011). Homonegativity avoids the psychological implications, but there is definitional uncertainty and slippage in the accuracy of its usage (Lottes and Grollman 2010). Similarly, when heterosexism is used to understand behaviors that denigrate homosexuality, the power to understand the implicit and structural privileging of heterosexuality is weakened (McCormack 2012a). As we have argued elsewhere (McCormack and Anderson 2014b), literal interpretations of the etymology of a word are less important than the conceptual value that they maintain. The use of homophobia as a broad category to understand discrimination against sexual minorities is in-line with much research on the topic. It is also supported by the fact that positive attitudes toward homosexuality are correlated with positive attitudes toward bisexuality (Mohr and Rochlen 1999)—meaning negative attitudes are likely to be related as well. Accordingly, we will continue to use the term homophobia when relating to matters of discrimination that apply to gays, lesbians and bisexuals together. Even so, one problem with homophobia studies is that the experiences of bisexuals are frequently erased (Burleson 2005). Indeed, while individuals' expe-riences in such a culture will vary according to the category of one's minority status (Worthen 2013), research has regularly examined the experiences of sexual minorities as a homogenous group; often failing to recognize important differences both within and between them (Savin-Williams 1998). This is significant because research indicates that heterosexuals may have more negative attitudes toward bisexuals than gays or lesbians (Herek 2002), and that bisexuals suffer discrimi-nation from gays and lesbians as well as from heterosexuals (McLean 2008). Bisexual youth have also been found to experience higher levels of harassment and suicide ideation than their lesbian and gay peers (Pompili et al. 2014; Robinson and Espelage 2011). Indeed, Savin-Williams (2001b) contends that quantitative research that groups bisexuals with gays and lesbians exaggerate negative findings related to gays and lesbians because bisexuals have significantly worse experiences. Exemplifying this, in the recent analysis of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data from 2005 to 2010, across seven states, Gorman et al. (2015) found that bisexual men and women have worse rates of self-reported health compared to both heterosexual and gays and lesbians. In fact, gay men reported better rates of health than straight men. It is thus important to study the ways in which bisexuals suffer discrimination that is independent from the stigma faced by gays and lesbians. We use the term biphobia (Eliason 1997) to understand this phenomenon, including antipathy directed toward bisexuals from other sexual minority communities. We will also use the term biphobia when discussing research that has focused on bisexual populations. However, we use the term homophobia to describe general antipathy toward same-sex sex, regardless of the sexual identity of the individual who engages in this. 50 4 Bisexuality as a Unique Social Problem