How has the portrayal of bisexuality in American cinema

changed in relation to a changing, and developing, sociocultural climate?

Introduction
Bisexuality has been widely debated about for many years, in both sociological and scientific terms,
and even today, in the twenty-first century, there are people who will deny the legitimacy of
bisexuality as a sexual orientation. Bisexuality has been a classificatory term for sexuality and
sexual orientation since 19141 meaning that it technically legitimised for one hundred years, and yet
it has been said that bisexuality has long been one of the most difficult to define because it depends
on broader issues surrounding the definitions of gender, sex, and sexuality.2 To define bisexuality
in the most simple of terms, the American Psychological Association, defines being a bisexual as
having emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to both men and women.3 Like any sexuality, there
are stereotypes that follow the bisexual around and Mary Z. Strange, Carol K. Oyster, and Jane E.
Sloane call attention to the two most significant of these: (1) that [bisexuality] does not exist; and
(2) that bisexuality implies and is even inseparable from promiscuity.4 These stereotypes mean that
the bisexual essentially has their sexuality, and thus their identity, denied by society; if this sexuality
is not being denied then it associated with another demeaning identity that frequently could not be
further from the truth.
Moreover, bisexuals are victims of both homophobia as well as biphobia, meaning that they are made
to suffer in ways that the homosexual community is not. Wayne M. Bryant addresses bisexuals who
suffer at the hand of homophobia, Bigots who hate people for loving members of their own sex do
not much care whether those people are also attracted to the opposite sex.5 Those bigots that he
mentioned are so blinded by their disgust of same-sex attraction that any opposite-sex attraction
becomes utterly irrelevant to them. Bryant then notes that biphobia is not exclusive to the
heterosexual, and frequently will come from homosexuals. The heterosexual and the homosexual,
however, have different motives behind their biphobia, according to Bryant. For homosexuals,
Bryant believes that gays and lesbians sometimes feel that bisexuals are not reliable political
1 Mary Z. Strange, Carol K. Oyster, Jane E. Sloane, The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in
Today's World, p. 157
2 Ibid., pp. 156-157
3 American Psychological Association, Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality,
<http://web.archive.org/web/20130808032050/http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexualorientation.aspx>
4 Strange et al., The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, p. 159
5 Wayne M. Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film: From Anais to Zee, p. 46

partners because of their relationships with the opposite sex.6 For heterosexuals, biphobia has been
more about AIDS with tabloids spreading hysteria against bisexuals by claiming that bisexual men
spread AIDS to the heterosexual community.7 While the two communities have their own reasons
for biphobia, this phobia is often the result of negative stereotypes that adhere to bisexuality.8 One
of the strongest of these stereotypes is the idea that bisexuals are sexually confused, incapable of
settling on one person9 or even one gender. Homosexuals, who have long suffered from such
stereotypes in society, should be sympathetic to the plight of the bisexual, but this does not seem to
be the case.
Considering the issues already raised, it is easy to see why bisexuality has not been a priority for
Hollywood, even in modern twenty-first century society. Maria San Filippo notes that, Appealing to
variable spectatorial identifications, desires, and readings enhances commercial prospects, so long as
representations of sexuality do not stray too radically from contemporaneous standards of
mainstream acceptability.10 Bisexuality strays from the heteronormative mainstream, and so films
that centre on bisexuality, according to Filippos observation, would not be commercial successes.
Since filmmaking is a business, the people involved are in it to make money, and if portraying
bisexuality will not do this then there is very little incentive to take a project such as this on.
While bisexuals do still suffer from both homophobia and bisexuality, portrayals of bisexual
characters have gone from being virtually non-existent and reliant upon subtext to being explicit
within American cinema. As Hollywood has grown through society, the changing attitudes of this
society have rather clearly impacted the ways in which bisexuality has been portrayed in American
films. In the early days of Hollywood bisexuality suffered at the hand of censorship before it moved
on to be seemingly fetishized through the vilification of bisexual characters. Now it seems to be
slowly normalising in American cinema, and this essay will explore how this has come to be.

6 Ibid., p. 46
7 Ibid., p. 46
8 Strange et al., The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, p. 159
9 Ibid., p. 160
10 Maria San Filippo, The B Word: Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television, p. 19

I
Bisexuality in Classical Hollywood and New Hollywood
Classical Hollywood was a time of censorship and the Motion Picture Production Code (which will
henceforth be referred to as The Code) which meant that anything deemed as profanity was banned
from being shown in American cinema for many years. New Hollywood was a reaction to this era as
The Code was repealed and filmmakers were finally able to show the things that had previously been
restricted. Classical Hollywood (usually considered to be1927-1963) was also a time of less
tolerability towards same-sex relationships within American society; this means that not only did
bisexuality get virtually no representation, but if it did, it certainly was not in a positive light. Under
The Code, adultery, seduction, rape, and sexual perversion (including male/male and female/female
sex)11 were not permitted to be shown on the screen. This did not mean that there were no bisexual
characters during this era; filmmakers just had to be careful about how they portrayed them. Bryant
discusses this in his book Bisexual Characters in Film: From Anais to Zee saying, Searching for
bisexual characters during the days of The Code meant looking for subtleties that modern audiences
tend to ignore.12 Twenty-first century viewers are used to seeing sex, and sexuality, addressed
unambiguously and since this was not possible for this era, we have to adjust our expectations of the
films and their representations of bisexuality. When we get to the New Hollywood era of cinema, the
filmmakers were able to show more than they had previously, but as Bryant states, The demise of
The Code did not stop the disappearance of bisexual characters.13 Society was still geared towards
homophobia, and therefore, biphobia and this meant that filmmakers did not want to make films with
obvious bisexuality in them as they would not be successful and would end up lose money. Maria
San Filippo attributes the continuing (in)visibility of screen bisexuality to a cultural disavowal of
bisexual desire14, which we can clearly see throughout these two eras of Hollywood.
Considering all this, there are ways in which we can see bisexual characters during Classical
Hollywood and New Hollywood. The viewer just needs to look a little harder and from a different
perspective than modern minds are used to. The first ever film to include bisexual characters is
considered to be A Florida Enchantment (1914) in which Lillian swallows a seed from an African

11 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 26

12 Ibid., p. 31
13 Ibid., p. 56
14 Filippo, Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television, p. 32

tree of sexual change15 and becomes possessed of male instincts16. Lillian then comes on to
several women, all of whom, Bryant notes, seem attracted to her.17 This films addressing of
sexuality and issues surrounding sex and gender seem remarkably forward-thinking for its time; the
fluidity and sexuality and gender are still being discussed all these years later and so it seems that
this film deserves credit for being not only incredibly risky for its time, but also remaining relevant
after so many years have passed. Obviously, being set in 1914, this film came before the era of
Classical Hollywood, but it is still worth noting as being the first film to depict bisexuality in any
manner.
Coming into Classical Hollywood, The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is full of subtext and innuendo,
seemingly portraying Henry Frankenstein and his partner, Dr Pretorius, as bisexual and homosexual
respectively. Bryant questions who the titular bride of Frankenstein really is as Henry
Frankenstein spends what was to be his wedding night with his partner, Dr. Pretorius.18 The sexual
connotations associated with the wedding night mean that Frankensteins decision to spend it with
his male partner send a very clear message of sexual relations between the two men to audiences in
the 1930s. The reason that the film was able to get away with portraying bisexuality and
homosexuality in such a manner was that it also happened to include blasphemy which was an even
greater evil19 to The Code. The blasphemy seems to have served as a distraction to the enforcers of
The Code and enabled the sexual elements to shine through in the film.
Following this, the clamps were being tightened, [and] virtually nothing gay or bisexual made it
past the Hays Office for the remainder of the 1930s and early 1940s.20 The next film to consider,
therefore, is 1946s Gilda which is described as being a love triangle film with bisexuality as the
subtext.21 Gilda is married to a man whom her former lover adores; the husband, Ballin, also
happens to be the former lovers new boss. The complexities of the relationships definitely seem to
suggest a bisexual element of the film through Gildas former lover. This is especially true when
considering lines such as I was born the night you met me.22 After this, 1950 saw Young Man with
15 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 10
16 Ibid., p. 10
17 Ibid., p. 11
18 Ibid., p. 28
19 Ibid., p. 29
20 Ibid., p. 29
21 Ibid., p. 32
22 Charles Vidor, Gilda, 1946

a Horn in which Amy runs off to Paris with a young woman artist23 after a failed relationship with
a trumpeter. The suggestion of this is that after her failed attempts at heterosexuality, Amy turns to a
woman to fill the void and thus is expressing her bisexuality.
One film that is mentioned frequently concerning bisexuality in the Classical Hollywood era is
Stanley Kubricks 1960 Spartacus. Maria San Filippo talks about this film saying mentioning a
now-legendary scene, cut from the original release in which Crassus (Laurence Olivier)
suggestively tells Antonius that his taste includes both snails and oysters.24 During this scene, the
two men had been discussing how to treat a woman and so the implication is that Crassus has no
sexual preference for either, but enjoys them both. The administrator of The Code wrote, The
dialogue of this page clearly suggests that Crassus is sexually attracted to women and men25 and so
the scene had to be cut.
Next to explore is the New Hollywood era of films (from the late 1960s to the early 1980s) which
does include more bisexual characters, but they still suffer from negative societal stereotypes and the
continued denial of the legitimacy of bisexuality. The 1969 film Angel, Angel, Down We Go includes
a bisexual male singer who seduces a young woman, and then her parents. Something for Everyone
(1970) Conrad has an obsession with the idea of living in a castle26 and seems to be using his
bisexuality to make his way to the top.27 The 1971 film Women in Revolt features a bisexual
nymphomaniac28 female fashion model who ends up a vagrant wino.29 These films all demonstrate
the ways in which New Hollywood filmmakers exploited the bisexual as someone whose entire
identity seems to be surrounded by the need for sex. This played on the idea of the bisexuality being
inseparable from promiscuity, as mentioned in the introduction to this essay.
One very significant film for bisexual portrayal in the New Hollywood era is The Rocky Horror
Picture Show (1975), in which a bisexual mad scientist seduces a heterosexual couple in the space of
one night. Moreover, he is building himself a man with blond hair and a tan.30 Not only is Frank N
23 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 34
24 Filippo, Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television, p. 15
25 Geoffrey Shurlock, quoted in Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 37
26 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 86
27 Ibid., p. 5
28 Ibid.,, p. 83
29 Ibid.,, p. 83
30 Jim Sharman, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975

Furter incredibly camp, but he too is seemingly obsessed with sex; demonstrating just how little had
changed over the New Hollywood era regarding bisexuality.

II
Bisexuality in Contemporary Hollywood
When considering contemporary attitudes to the LGBT+ community, it is clear to see that there is a
lack of emphasis on the B in LGBT just by looking at the Huffington Post's LGBT+ page31 . In 2013,
the Huffington Post was the most shared news outlet on Facebook and ranked in the top ten on
Twitter32, indicating just how far their reach is and how much of a reflection the website is on
contemporary society. Unlike other news sites, they have an entire section dedicated to bisexual
news, demonstrating their dedication to giving a voice to sexual minorities. The New York Times and
the BBC, for example, do not even have a dedicated area to news within the LGBT+ community, let
alone an exclusively bisexual area.
However, while having a section dedicated to bisexual news is a clear sign of progress, this section
on the Huffington Post has considerably less posted on it than the gay, lesbian, and even transgender
sections on the website. It is clear to see that there is a definite, even if unintentional, lack of
importance placed upon the bisexual community within the mainstream media. The fact that their
main page for LBGT+ news is actually called gay voices also demonstrates discrimination against
other sexualities; a word like queer for example is used to describe sexual and gender minorities
that are considered to be outside of the heteronormative. This shows us that even in 2014 biphobia is
still very much an issue.
The Contemporary Hollywood era, however, has a lot more freedom to portray characters who defer
from the heteronormative, meaning that there has been an increase in the number of bisexual
characters in American cinema since the 1980s. One of the most important of these in 1997s
Chasing Amy which seems to experiment with bisexuality before going back to the heteronormative,
coinciding with the stereotyping of bisexuality as just a phase or the easy way out33, as Maria
San Filippo puts it. This is further confirmed by the fact that Alyssa describes herself as an
experimental girl34. Alyssa starts out as a lesbian who starts a relationship with a man, suggesting

31 Huffington Post, HuffPost Gay Voices, < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gay-voices/>

32 Paul Quigley, August 2013s Top Social Content Publishers, <
http://blog.newswhip.com/index.php/2013/09/social-publishers>
33 Filippo, Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television, p. 4
34 Kevin Smith, Chasing Amy, 1997

that bisexuals are not real; they are merely experimenting with the idea of homosexuality until such
times as the heteronormative can be restored.
This film receives a lot of criticisms, within the LGBT+ community, for its portrayal of bisexuality
since what Chasing Amy does not dois ever use the term bisexual35 and thus does not provide
any validity for the bisexual community in a way that the community would benefit from. Moreover,
Maria San Filippo argues that in so meticulously avoiding its explicit articulation, Chasing Amy
emerges as a consummate case of bisexual (in)visibility the unnamed, elusive quality of bisexual
representation that I find symptomatic of our cultural fascination-anxiety about bisexual desire and
subjectivity.36 She expands on this saying that, Far more troubling than Chasing Amys avoidance
of the B word itself is the films ultimate resistance to what the B word signifies.37 Essentially, this
means that Chasing Amy is damaging to bisexuality because the film refuses to acknowledge
bisexuality and its role within this film. A final point made in Maria San Filippos The B Word:
Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television is that, In its reluctance to move beyond this
heteronormative way of thinking, Chasing Amy ends up re-inscribing the same cultural assumptions
and restrictions around sexuality that it purports to dismantle, and so finally demonstrates just how
naturalized the twin tenets of monosexuality and monogamy continue to be.38 The film seems to be
taking a risk in its decision to include elements of the bisexual, but ultimately ends up reaffirming the
need for monosexual heteronormative ways of thinking, making it even more hypocritical than if the
film itself was explicitly anti-bisexual.
Another film during this era that is noteworthy is Brokeback Mountain (2005) which works
energetically to establish these men as what we would today call bisexual.39 Neither Jack nor Ennis
express a sexual preference for men or women, and engage with both genders, thus confirming that
they are both behaviorally bisexual.40It has been said of this film that the two men are both straight
but happen to fall in love with men, and so it seems as if society has specifically tried to see this as
anything other than the bisexual film that it is.

35 Filippo, Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television, p. 11

36 Ibid., p. 11
37 Ibid., p. 11
38 Ibid., p. 12
39 Ibid., p. 161
40 Ibid., p. 168

Neither of these films have particularly positive portrayals of bisexuality when considering their
cultural elements, but they did help to raise awareness for the existence of bisexuality to an extent.
This is not always the case, even in films from the Contemporary Hollywood era, and so we should
be grateful that they did not do what some other films have done with their bisexual characters, such
as portraying them as villains.

III
The Bisexual as the Villain
Within Hollywood, there seems to be three different ways in which to portray the bisexual: the
villain, the victim, or the embodiment of promiscuity. As far as the bisexual villain is concerned, it is
often simple to make this character promiscuous as well since, as stated in The Multimedia
Encyclopedia of Women in Todays World, bisexuality often wrongly implies promiscuity and
defiance of monogamy.41 Wayne M. Bryant, in his article Bi Film Retrospective, talks about
common themes of portrayals of bisexuals are as mentally ill, victims, unable to maintain
relationship fidelity, people who sleep with anything that moves, sex workers, and killers.42
Across the different eras of Hollywood, characters who do not abide by the monosexual
heteronormative have generally been represented as villainous characters. This is because they have
been considered as the Other, a figure that is threatening to society through their non-conformity to
the values which society stands for. Wayne M. Bryant notes that The real world of bisexuality, not
surprisingly, has far fewer psychopathic killers per capita than its corresponding celluloid
community.43 Within American cinema, the main portrayals of bisexuality are as these
psychopathic killers which makes things worse within the bisexual community, as this perpetuated
evil is how normal society sees bisexuals. Basic Instinct, which this essay will discuss in detail, was
actually boycotted by gay, lesbian and bisexual groups because of the way in which it portrayed
the murderous bisexual seductress Catherine Tramell.44
When considering Hollywood and its portrayals of bisexuals, Bryant states, The fact that
Hollywood in particular and other film producers in general are so willing to represent bisexuals as
emotionally sick individuals is an indication of the depth of the prejudice against bisexuality.45
Bryant is arguing that Hollywoods reliance on the bisexual villain demonstrates the depths of
biphobia within American society. Moreover, there is, within this society, the notion of bisexuality as
an unstable sexuality and this links to mental instability, which seemingly makes the bisexual the
perfect villain for Hollywood.
41 Strange et al., The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in Todays World, p. 160
42 Wayne M. Bryant, Bi Film Retrospective, Journal of Bisexuality 11.4, pp. 583-584
43 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 59
44 GLTBA, Bisexuality in Film, http://www.glbtq.com/arts/bisex_film.html
45 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 59

The final way in which societal biphobia has affected the portrayal of bisexual characters is by
having them be victim. There is the old, well-known stereotype of the black guy being the first to die
in horror films, and this can be extended to bisexual characters too. Bryant says that bisexuals as
victims parallels the institutional prejudice that white Hollywood blatantly promoted against
women, people of color, and third world people.46
The main way that we see bisexuals in films, however, is as the psychopathic killer and this is most
significantly done through the character of Catherine Tramell in Paul Verhoevens Basic Instinct
(1992). Catherine is not the only bisexual murderer, however, with her former lover, Beth, possibly
having been responsible for some of the murders. Finally, there is Hazel, who is never explicitly
identified as bisexual, who murders her entire family and acts as a mentor figure to Catherine. With
all these bisexuals, and Catherines lesbian girlfriend, Roxy, there is the expectation that the viewer
would be exposed to lesbian sex between these women. This, however, is not the case, as Bryant
points out, all the sex [in Basic Instinct] is heterosexual, thus adding to the prurient male fantasy.47
This focus on heterosexual erotic acts, which is almost pornographic at times, seems to suggest that
bisexual women are only to add to a mans pleasure and that their sexual orientation is only there to
please the male characters. This is further confirmed when Nick makes a joke out of suggesting a
threesome between himself, Catherine, and Roxy; he wants to exploit her sexuality for his own
personal pleasure.
When Catherine is first introduced to the audience, she is killing her male love, and her face is kept
hidden, thus seemingly expressing how insignificant her identity is. Therefore, when the audience is
introduced to Roxy, the assumption is made that Roxy is Catherine, a mistake made by Nick as well.
This seems to suggest that all non-heterosexual women are the same and that they are
interchangeable with one another. The main plot of the film follows an investigation of a number of
murders that all seem to link back to Catherine, in which we discover that Beth, Nicks therapist, was
previously involved with Catherine and may be responsible for some portion of the body count48,
as noted by Bryant. These three queer women are the ones who are portrayed as psychopathic,
despite the fact that Nick himself killed innocent civilians, including Beth in the films climax. While
Nick is arguably an anti-hero, he is scrutinised considerably less than these women; his nickname in
46 Ibid., p. 67
47 Ibid., p. 64
48 Ibid., p. 64

the film is Shooter, and so we can see that his killings are being made light of throughout the film.
The women, however, do not conform to heterosexual or monosexual societal standards in the way
that Nick does, meaning that they deserve to be punished.
Another thing about Catherine is that she is frequently portrayed alongside the colour white: when
we see her first home, everything is white; the most famous scene of the film, the interrogation
scene, has her dressed entirely in white. The fact that Catherine is shown alongside the colour of
innocence and purity is incredibly significant as this perpetuates the idea that she is trying to thrust
her innocence into the subconscious of not only the other characters, but also the films audience.
There are a few times when the viewer is made to wonder whether Catherine might in fact be
innocent, but the only other suspect is another bisexual woman, Beth. This narrow-minded focus on
the queer woman as a killer seems to go hand-in-hand with Nicks erotic obsession49 with
Catherine. The film is almost obsessed with bisexual women being the killers in the same way that
Nick seems to become consumed with Catherine. Nick, in fact, becomes so infatuated with Catherine
that he actually starts to behave like her which we see in their respective interrogation scenes.
One idea about bisexuals is that they are frequently represented as sexually insatiable; their desire to
have sex with men and women is implied to be the result of their insatiability.50 Developing on this
idea, the reason that Nick becomes so obsessed with Catherine is because of her sexuality; to him she
is this insatiable woman and that means that he has to have her. We could take this even further as
Strange, Oyster, and Sloane say that films such as Basic Instinct highlight a characters bisexuality
largely to suggest mental instability and a tendency to use sexuality rather than to develop healthy
romantic relationships.51 This seems to perfectly describe the way in which Catherine is developed
as a character; she only cares about sex and has no interest in maintaining a relationship. She says to
Nick about Roxy, shes seen me fuck plenty of guys52, which tells us that she cannot sustain
healthy romantic relationships with either men or women. Roxys jealousy drives her to attempted
murder, and ultimately her own death; Catherine kills her male lover and seems entirely unaffected
by what shes done. Her emotional dysfunction and her mental instability are directly related to her
bisexuality, thus demonstrating to the audience the negative effects of bisexuality.

49 Filippo, Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television, p. 112

50 Strange et al., The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in Todays World, p. 160
51 Ibid.,, p. 160
52 Paul Verhoeven, Basic Instinct, 1992

There are other examples of villainous bisexual characters in American cinema as put forward by
Bryant in Bisexual Characters in Film: From Anais to Zee. He lists a number of films in which
married bisexual men beat their wives: The Leather Boys (1964), Petulia (1968), American Gigolo
(1980), Blue Velvet (1986), and Total Eclipse (1995)53. Bryant goes on to talk about the bisexual
vampire who is nearly always female54 included in films such as The Velvet Vampire (1971). He
then talks about the 1970 films Something for Everyone, The Todd Killings, and Beyond the Valley of
the Dolls. These 1970 films all feature bisexual killers who commit several murders through the
duration of the film. Confessions of a Serial Killer (1992) features another bisexual serial killer, and
happened to be released in the same year as Basic Instinct which Bryant comments on, saying that
the films remind us that Hollywood is still not above using bisexuality to underscore the unsavory
nature of its murderous characters.55 He continues on this point by describing the policy of guiltby-orientation [which] helps to perpetuate hate towards bisexuals and other sexual minorities.56 The
fact that these films have bisexuals as the villains increases societys distrust and even hate for the
bisexual. In turn, this increased distrust and hate enables Hollywood to continue making the films
that allow this to happen.

53 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 61

54 Ibid., p. 62
55 Ibid., p. 66
56 Ibid., p. 66

Conclusion
Bisexuality has been described as being a natural state that people repress because of heterosexism57 and so it seems almost absurd that it would either be ignored within society or made out to
be something that is bordering on vulgarity. Society seems to have no real understanding of what it
means to be bisexual with people making outlandish assumptions of bisexuals as unstable
individuals who are unwilling to admit their true social orientations.58 This is primarily down to the
stereotypes that Hollywood projects onto its audience, but because of these assumptions, it is
difficult for Hollywood to progress past the stereotypes. Hollywood, in this instance, seems to be
shooting itself in the foot as far as the representation of bisexuality is considered.
While the perpetuation of stereotypes is a huge factor in how bisexuality is portrayed in American
cinema, another argument put forward by Bryant is that characters may not actually know
themselves, Even if the character is well-developed in the script, we may not know, with certainty,
whether or not he or she is truly bisexual because the character may not be sure either.59 In a standalone film, the viewer only gets a glimpse into the lives of its characters and during this glimpse, the
character may not be aware of, or may not have even come to terms with, their bisexuality. This
complicates the situation for the filmmaker, especially if this characters sexuality is not of any
importance to the main plot of the film.
Another thing that should be considered is the fact that homosexuality seems to be easier for a
monosexual, heterosexual society to accept, and this means that bisexuals occupy a liminal spot in
relation to LGBTQ culture.60 The homosexual, like the heterosexual, is attracted to one gender
meaning that their lives are more stable and more relatable than that of the bisexual, who is often
seen as being greedy for wanting to have sex with both men and women. Because of this division of
sexual orientations, there is nowhere for bisexuals to turn to be accepted. This, in turn, leads to the
continuation of the bisexual stereotypes, because no one is willing to take a stand against them and
those who are end up being marginalised by both heterosexual and homosexual society.

57 Strange et al., The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in Todays World, p. 157

58 Ibid., p. 160
59 Bryant, Bisexual Characters in Film, p. 4
60 Strange et al., The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in Todays World, p. 160

It is clear to see that the bisexual movement has made halting political progress61 since the
beginning of the 20th century, when even saying the word bisexual in a Hollywood film was banned.
While bisexuals are being played as promiscuous villains, and fetishized to an extent, at least they
are not being set aside and ignored by Hollywood filmmakers, as they have been in the past. This
offers hope for the bisexual looking forward, because the only way to go from films like Basic
Instinct is up, and hopefully this will lead to well-rounded, and not evil, bisexual characters.

61 Bryant, Bi Film Retrospective, p. 584