The study of human sexuality has been a significant area of interest for researchers across various disciplines since time immemorial. Bisexuality is one such sexual orientation that has caught the attention of scholars due to its unique characteristics.
Despite the growing interest in this area, bisexual erasure remains a persistent issue that hinders the understanding of sexual fluidity and its legitimacy. This essay will explore how academic research contributes to reinforcing societal myths about sexual fluidity and legitimacy by analyzing examples of bias in studies regarding bisexual individuals and suggesting ways to mitigate these issues.
Bisexual erasure refers to the tendency of society to ignore or deny the existence of bisexuality as an identity, often leading to discrimination against bisexuals. In the context of academic research, this manifests itself through several biases that shape how bisexuality is studied and reported. One such bias is the assumption that bisexuals are merely experimenting with their sexuality or are closeted homosexuals. This assumption can be seen in studies that conflate bisexuality with other identities or assume that bisexuals have more heterosexual partners than same-sex ones (Lambert et al., 2016). Such biases can lead to erroneous conclusions about bisexual behavior, which further perpetuates the idea that bisexuality is not real.
Another example of bisexual erasure in academic research is the use of flawed methodologies. Many studies on bisexuality rely on self-reported data, which may be unreliable because of social desirability bias (Klein & Meyer, 2015).
Some researchers exclude bisexual participants from their samples altogether, limiting our knowledge of the bisexual experience. The lack of accurate data on bisexuality also feeds into the myth that bisexuality does not exist and reinforces negative stereotypes about bisexuals being promiscuous or confused.
Academic research contributes to reinforcing societal myths about sexual fluidity by failing to acknowledge the intersectionality of sexual orientation with other identities like race, gender, and socioeconomic status. By ignoring these factors, researchers miss out on important insights that could shed light on how bisexuality manifests differently across different groups.
Studies focusing solely on white, middle-class bisexuals risk overlooking the experiences of minority communities, who face unique challenges due to their race and class (Brown, 2018).
To mitigate these issues, scholars must actively work towards dismantling the myths surrounding bisexuality through more inclusive and nuanced research methods. This can involve incorporating multiple perspectives when studying bisexual behavior and using reliable data collection techniques like observational studies or mixed methods (Harrington et al., 2016). Moreover, acknowledging the complexity of bisexual identity and its intersectionality is crucial in understanding how it manifests in diverse contexts.
Bisexual erasure in academic research reinforces societal myths about sexual fluidity and legitimacy by limiting our knowledge of this identity and perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
Researchers can contribute to correcting these misconceptions by adopting more inclusive methodologies and acknowledging the complexities of bisexuality across different social groups.
How does bisexual erasure in academic research reinforce societal myths about sexual fluidity and legitimacy?
The absence of bisexual representation from studies on sexual orientation is an indication that bi individuals are marginalized within society and research. By overlooking this group, academics perpetuate stereotypes about bisexuals as promiscuous, confused, or untrustworthy while also creating a false impression that they do not exist. This reinforces the idea that bisexuality is unstable or invalid.