Bisexuality and Polyamory Myths and Realities

From Bluetruth

by Alexis Hazell

[ Editor's note: This essay was derived from talks given at Deakin University and Monash University in 2004, and was originally published online on the bi.org.au Web site; it is republished here with some minor editorial changes. ]

Bisexuality and polyamory are two forms of non-heteronormative behaviour that are commonly surrounded by misunderstandings, myths, and outright misrepresentations. However, although one of those myths is that bisexuality necessarily involves polyamory, it also often seems to be the case that bisexuals are particularly well-represented in the polyamorous communities. A survey by Loving More Magazine in 2002 found that over 50% of those practicing polyamorists willing to state a sexual identity identified as bisexual. [1] Given this apparent significant overlap between the bisexual and polyamorous communities, issues that affect one community can also tend to impact the other; and it is thus important to keep both communities in mind when discussing such issues. Thus, in this essay, we consider the myths and realities of bisexuality and polyamory together.

So, to begin with: What is a 'bisexual'? Is it people who identify as bisexual? Or is it people who exhibit bisexual behaviour? And if it's the latter, what constitutes 'bisexual' behaviour"?

Rebecca Kaplan, in her essay "Your fence is sitting on me", noted that:

[M]any people read some small excerpt from Kinsey [i.e. the publications Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male and Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female both by Alfred C. Kinsey, published in 1948 and 1953, respectively], collapse together all the people on one side of some arbitrarily chosen point on the scale, call all people on one side 'gay' and call all people on the other side 'straight.' In fact, it is this reading which gave rise to the oft-cited 10 percent figure. By collapsing together all people at 5 or above on the Kinsey scale, some activists calculated that 10 percent of adult Euro-American males (Kinsey's population under study) are 'gay.' [2]

Further, the summary of the results of the Australian Study of Health and Relationships states that, of the more than 14,000 people who responded to the survey,

97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as gay and 1.4% bisexual. Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same sex or some sexual experience with the same sex. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual. This illustrates that same sex attraction and experience are more common in Australia [than] is indicated by the relatively few people reporting a homosexual or bisexual identity. [3]

So on a purely behavioural basis, there are actually more bisexuals than gays and lesbians combined!

At this point, I'd like to make it clear that I'm definitely not trying to say that people who are behaviourally bisexual but don't identify as such are "really" bisexual. Instead, I'm trying to rebut the notion that bisexuality doesn't really exist, that people are either heterosexual or homosexual. Personally, I'm comfortable with people of a wide variety of sexual orientations calling themselves "bisexual"; and I'm also comfortable with people who are behaviourally bisexual calling themselves 'lesbian', 'gay' or 'straight'. I do, however, think it is important to recognise that bisexuality in a behavioural sense tends to be hidden in such situations.

Another difficulty in trying to define 'bisexuality' is the recent re-appearance of the "bisexual chic" fad. In an article for the Bi-Victoria newsletter, I wrote that:

It's difficult to find a piece of writing in the mainstream press which mentions the word 'bisexual' without finding that it is immediately followed by the word 'chic'. The impression I get, however, is that it is only "chic" when there are Hot Bi Babes involved (a term which is often used ironically by members of the polyamorous community to describe what many - if not most - straight men are really interested in when they say they're interested in polyamory). In other words, it seems to me that it's only "chic" when the bisexuality in question is that of women, rather than men. And in any event, the point of such "chic" seems to be more about titillating straight males than about women exploring their sexuality.

Indeed, the word 'bisexual' itself is apparently becoming increasingly used to refer only to women; and then only (or at least mainly) in a sexual sense. That is, a "bisexual" is a woman who interacts sexually with both men and women. (The possibility of women interacting with women in other intimate, but non-sexual ways, doesn't seem to be discussed.) This notion is based on two observations:

• people in the swing scene who only discuss bisexuality as a phenomenon occurring amongst women, and who seem startled at the prospect of bisexuality amongst men. Not that there is a rejection of the possibility: they just don't really seem to have considered it.

• a lack, as far as I can tell, of mainstream discussions of bisexuality which spend much time discussing male/male interaction. In fact, where bisexual men are referenced, it is predominantly in a context in which their bisexual behaviour or identity is represented as problematic: for example, in articles about women who have to cope with their male partner being bisexual, or about women who have discovered that their husband has been cheating on them with another man, or about women whose lives were turned upside-down when their male partner revealed that he had contracted HIV as a result of an unsafe sex session at a male sauna. So bisexuality amongst women is "chic"; bisexuality amongst men is destructive and probably also a leading cause of tooth-decay.

Why, however, do people who are behaviourally bisexual not identify as bisexual? There are any number of valid reasons: they may feel that bisexuality has to involve romantic attraction, in addition to physical attraction; they may not want to be associated with any of the negative connotations which our society often ascribes to bisexuals; they may not want to accept a label that places them in a minority group; they may simply feel that the label doesn't accurately describe their sexuality; or they may reject such labels altogether.

At this point, I'd like to elaborate a little on the negative connotations of bisexuality, by taking a brief look at some examples of bisexuality in the mass media.

Take, for example, the character of Willow, from the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The scriptwriters had an opportunity to show Willow exploring whether or not she was bisexual, and whether or not she actually wanted to be in a relationship with Tara as well as with Oz. Especially after Oz returns; Willow realises that she still has feelings for Oz, but dismisses the whole issue by noting that she's 'gay' now. Huh? So what was all that lovey-dovey stuff with Oz? Why was she so worked up when Oz left to control his werewolfishness? That doesn't sound like the behaviour of someone who's not interested in guys.

Further, the television series The L Word has, I believe, offered us a common characterisation of bisexuals: someone who follows the show told me that one female character:

Cheated on her fiance with [a] woman, got caught out, [apologised] in front of lover and queer grrl crowd, and begged him to take her back, had quickie wedding and then he ditched her. [4]

Having said that, I'm also told that this character is not necessarily bisexual; she may be bi-curious. Further, there is apparently another female character who actively identifies as bisexual and who is accepted by a group of lesbians, which sounds rather more positive.

Another positive representation of bisexual people appears in the British TV series The Bill, which features a bi character who, I am told, has stated that she does not cheat or knowingly enter into relationships with people who are cheating on their partners.

On the other hand, Channel Nine's series Stingers includes a character named Chris Dichiera who (in the show) has slept with both men and women - leading the show's other characters to ask something like "Why is she sleeping with a guy - isn't she a dyke?" That she might be bisexual doesn't seem to have been considered.

Such characterisations can create psychological stresses for many bisexual people as we constantly struggle against such (often negative) stereotypes. Bisexuals also face other challenges to their mental well-being:

• We are often described as "really gay" by straight people and "really straight" by gays and lesbians.

• Following on from that, we are often described as "sitting on the fence", "refusing to choose", or "in transition [i.e. between being straight and lesbian or gay]", and that it is "just a phase" on our way to becoming "fully gay", "fully lesbian" or "fully straight". That may be true for a number of people, but I believe it's wrong to characterise every bisexual in such a manner. One might as well say that someone who likes both meat and vegetables is just in transition between being a vegetarian and being a carnivore.

• Certain sections of the gay and lesbian community say that we are "hiding behind the protective wall of heterosexual privilege". Well, as a member of Bi-Victoria has remarked, when he was younger, people didn't ask if he was gay or bi before they bashed him. And speaking personally, whilst I've never been the object of physical violence as a result of my bisexuality, I've certainly had to deal with a great deal of verbal abuse which was centred on the fact that I'm not heterosexual.

• Bisexuals are often cited as vectors for STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections), a notion seemingly supported by a recent study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, which found that "[p]redictors of recent STI or BBV [Blood-Borne Virus] diagnosis in men included homosexual or bisexual identity, a history of sex work as a worker or client, a history of injecting drugs and having more than one partner in the past year. In women, predictors included bisexual identity, history of sex work as a worker, injecting drug use, and having more than one partner in the past year." [5]

However, the fact is that "whether or not a person is at risk for HIV depends on their behavior, not their identity" [6]. For instance, a celibate bisexual is at less risk for STIs than a sexually active heterosexual.

The notion that bisexuals face unique psychological stresses is not merely theoretical. Study results published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in May 2002 actually went to the effort of studying the mental health of gays and bisexuals as two distinct populations, and compared them separately to the heterosexual population. I quote here from the summary:

METHOD: A community survey of 4824 adults was carried out in Canberra, Australia. Measures covered anxiety, depression, suicidality, alcohol misuse, positive and negative affect and a range of risk factors for poorer mental health. RESULTS: The bisexual group was highest on measures of anxiety, depression and negative affect, with the homosexual group falling between the other two groups. Both the bisexual and homosexual groups were high on suicidality. Bisexuals also had more current adverse life events, greater childhood adversity, less positive support from family, more negative support from friends and a higher frequency of financial problems. Homosexuals reported greater childhood adversity and less positive support from family. CONCLUSIONS: The bisexual group had the worst mental health, although homosexual participants also tended to report more distress. [7]

Further, in August 2000 the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board noted that:

It is the Board's experience that discrimination and vilification against people on the ground of their bisexuality is a reality and that this treatment has serious consequences for bisexual people in their public life. In many cases the unfair treatment of bisexual people flows directly from their bisexuality and not from presumed homosexuality. Accordingly the ground of homosexuality is ineffective in addressing discrimination and vilification experienced by bisexual people. [8]

Bisexuality does not necessarily imply polyamory. Many people make the assumption that because bisexuals are attracted to both men and women, that we need one male partner and one female partner to be happy. Whilst I'm sure this is true for some bisexuals, I believe it would be incorrect to say that it is more generally true. For example, someone who likes both redheads and brunettes does not necessarily need to have both a redheaded partner and a brunette partner. However, as noted at the beginning of this essay, it is true that many polyamorous people are indeed bisexual; and it is to the topic of polyamory that I now turn.

In a talk given at the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board's Mardi Gras Forum 2003, Bi Pride Australia co-president Glenn Vassallo described a polyamorous relationship as:

One in which three or more people are sexually and emotionally connected. It is possible that all the people involved may share the same level of connection to each other, or one person may have two or more partners who are not involved with each other. [9]

Polyamory describes a romantic relationship between more than two people; sex may or may not be involved. Polyfidelity is a closed relationship between more than two people; the participants agree that they will not engage in relationships - either emotional or sexual - with people outside the relationship. Nonmonogamy includes both these terms, and also swinging, which is where people allow sexual, but not romantic, relationships.

One thing that needs to be stated clearly is that polyamory is most certainly not cheating. Personally, I have a strong dislike for cheating. I consider "cheating" to be a situation in which one has a romantic and/or sexual relationship with someone other than their partner or partners without their knowledge and consent. My understanding of the word 'polyamory', however, is that it describes ethical nonmonogamy; that a given style of relationship involving multiple partners may only be called 'polyamory' if that relationship is conducted ethically. And I believe that dishonesty - including, in the case of relationships, lying by omission - is fundamentally unethical.

A common response to the concept of polyamory is that it's not "natural", either on religious or biological grounds. And yet the Tanakh - known as the 'Old Testament' in Christian cultures - seems to have no problem with at least some forms of polyamory: in Genesis 4:19, we're told that Lamech had two wives; in Genesis 25:6, we're told that Abraham had concubines; and in 1 Kings 11:3, we're told that Solomon "had seven hundred wives, all princesses, and three hundred concubines".

To those who claim that polyamory is biologically unnatural, I simply ask: Hands up those monogamous people who think they'll never be cheated on by a partner.

In fact, the biological argument seems to have little evidence to support it. The ABS reports that in 2000, there were approximately 49,900 divorces in Australia, with the median duration between marriage and final separation being 8.2 years. In Victoria alone there were approximately 12,400 divorces, with the median duration between marriage and final separation being 8.4 years [10]. A working paper published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 1999 entitled Towards understanding the reasons for divorce showed that, of the people surveyed, 22.6% of women and 33.3% of men stated "communication problems" as the main reason for marriage breakdown; whilst 20.3% of women and 19.7% of men stated that the main reason was that they "or former spouse had an affair" [11].

Additionally, the magazine FHM completed an online survey of approximately 25,000 British adults; of those, "56 per cent of men and women admitted to having been unfaithful in a relationship" [12]. And of course, that's only the people who admitted to being unfaithful - so the real figure would, I imagine, be higher. (It reminds me of the joke "95 out of a 100 men masturbate, and the other five are liars.")

There is, in fact, an entire book devoted to The Myth of Monogamy - that's the title of a book by David P. Barash and Judith Eve Lipton. In it, the authors note that:

When it comes to mammals, monogamy has long been known as a rarity. Out of 4,000 mammal species, no more than a few dozen form reliable pair-bonds, although in many cases it is hard to characterize them with certainty because the social and sexual lives of mammals tend to be more furtive then those of birds. Monogamous mammals are most likely to be bats (a few species only), certain canids (especially foxes), a few primates (notably the tiny New World monkeys known as marmosets and tamarins), a handful of mice and rats, several odd-sounding South American rodents (agoutis, pacas, acouchis, maras), the giant otter of South America, the northern beaver, a handful of species of seals, and a couple of small African antelopes (duikers, dik-diks, and klipspringers). A pitiful list. [13]

I must point out that the authors themselves aren't defenders of polyamory; in fact, regarding the notion that "open, unstructured, and nonrestrictive sexual relationships would make people happier" [14], they write:

There is no reason to believe that this is true. Indeed, many 'utopian' social experiments have failed precisely because feelings of interpersonal possessiveness got in the way of he idealized dream of social and sexual sharing . . . No other marital pattern - polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, 'open' marriage - has been shown to work better.

The problem with this is that the authors are selecting their data: they seem to be looking only at communes and ignoring the existence of a plethora of successful polyamorous relationships. However, they do note that monogamy:

Is altogether within the realm of human possibility. But since it is not natural, it is not easy. Similarly, this is not to say that monogamy isn't desirable, because there is very little connection, if any, between what is natural and easy and what is good. [16]

So as far as I can see, monogamy is not in fact biological natural for humans. Having said that, however, I believe that polyamory is not environmentally natural. By this I mean that so many of us are so saturated with notions of monogamy - from religious institutions, from our families, from our friends, from the media - that we can often find it difficult to imagine that it's anything other than "natural". But I believe it's no more "natural" than the English language is: it seems "natural" to think and speak in English when one has been raised in an exclusively English-speaking environment. But no-one, as far as I am aware, argues that English is our "natural" language.

I think monogamy is predominantly socially constructed, and saying that one is "hard wired" for monogamy - especially given that, if anything, research is tending to indicate that we're not "hard-wired" for monogamy - is as useful as saying one is "hard wired" for racism*. In my experience, such a claim often translates as "I really don't want to think about it" or "I don't want to have to examine myself on this issue". It reminds of a quote by Michael Rivero, who, I believe, developed the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com: "[m]ost propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." People that actually take the time to work through their feelings on monogamy can come to conclusions that surprise them. For example, a secondary partner of one of my partners initially described himself as "naturally" monogamous, and that he didn't think he could be poly. Well, suffice it to say, from the way I just introduced him, it's clear that that turned out to not in fact be the case - and he even recently attended a poly convention in the US.

However, I should note at this point that I'm certainly not trying to say that polyamory is for everyone. I admire people who have gone through an extensive process of self-examination and have come out the other side feeling that monogamy is the best option for them, because they've at least challenged themselves on the issue. What concerns me is not monogamy in itself, but people's lack of willingness to challenge their monogamous beliefs.

It's not surprising, however, that people have such views when our society is dominated by imagery which implies "two partners good, four partners bad". Movies and television shows often show situations where one character has to choose between having a relationship with person A or a relationship with person B.

To give another example involving Willow, but this time from the television series Angel: I am told that when Willow had a cameo role in the show, one of the female characters, Fred, was so interested in Willow that Willow felt the need to tell Fred that she already had a girlfriend [17]. The interesting thing about this is that Willow makes the assumption that Fred will derive the statement "Willow is monogamous" from her statement about having a girlfriend. If I said to someone "I have a partner", and that person then assumed I wasn't therefore available for other people to have a relationship with, they'd be completely wrong.

As always, language use indicates typical views in our society; even when people try to avoid making assumptions by using the word 'partner' instead of 'wife', 'girlfriend', 'husband' or 'boyfriend', they still only use the singular instead of using a phrase like 'partner or partners'. And most, if not all, forms and surveys only provide space for the details of one partner - which is particularly frustrating when the survey in question is about one's relationships!

So what about jealousy? In The Ethical Slut, Easton and Liszt write that:

Jealousy feels really rotten and most of us will go to great lengths to avoid feeling it. However, your authors believe that most people take the destructive power of jealousy way too much for granted, that they give their jealousy far more power than it deserves. After many years of living free and dealing successfully with jealousy, we tend to forget that we live in a culture that considers it acceptable to divorce or even murder a sexually explorative partner who has committed the unthinkable crime of arousing jealousy in us. [18]

Further, an important distinction that I've learned to make over the years is to differentiate between jealousy and envy. People tend to throw around these words as though they're synonymous, when in fact, they're not. My dictionary defines 'jealous' as "suspicious of, or incensed at, rivalry: envious: solicitous: anxiously heedful: mistrustfully vigilant: brooking no unfaithfulness" [19]. On the other hand, 'envy' is defined as "ill-will, hostility (obs.): a feeling of chagrin at the good looks, qualities, fortune, etc. of another: an object or person contemplated with grudging or emulous feeling" [20]. So although there is certainly some overlap, the two terms are definitely not identical. A concrete example is the one in which I learned the difference between the two: one of my partners and I used to attend sex parties regularly. Whilst I felt comfortable playing with people other than my partner, I - to varying degrees - would regularly feel uncomfortable when my partner was playing with other people. Hearing this, most people would say "Well, it sounds like you were jealous". And I thought the same thing for a while. But after much discussion with myself and my partner about it, I realised that I was in fact envious. Why? Because it wasn't that I felt my relationship was threatened by the person or people she was playing with; it was that she was having sex with someone when I wasn't. Essentially, I was thinking "That's not fair! I want some of that!" In other words, I was envious of her, not jealous.

Having said all that, I want to be clear that I'm not saying that whenever people say they're jealous, that they're really envious. Even making the distinction between the two terms that I do, I know that there were times when I was definitely jealous. I'm just saying that there are probably often occasions when 'envy' is the more appropriate word to use to describe what we're feeling. And if it turns out that it is the appropriate word, that can help turn a discussion from being about limiting another person's behaviour to assisting another person to get their needs met.

It's important to note at here that some people feel unhappy when their partner doesn't get jealous seeing them involved with another person; often, in those situations, jealousy is seen as a signal that someone really loves you. Personally, I feel this is a rather odd criterion, and not a productive one; but to each their own.

One set of concepts that some people find useful when discussing polyamory are the notions of having 'primary', 'secondary' and 'tertiary' partners. Deborah Anapol, in her classic work Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits defines these terms as follows:

A 'primary' relationship describes:

[l]overs who are in a long-term, committed, marriage-type relationship . . . Usually primary partners live together and share finances, parenting and decision making. Primary partners are not necessarily legally married, but they are bonded together as a family. [21]

A 'secondary' relationship describes lovers who:

may also have a long-term, committed sexualoving relationship. But usually they live separately, have separate finances and see themselves as close friends rather than immediate family. Secondary partners may take on roles in each other's families similar to those of cousins, aunts and uncles in an extended family of blood relations. [22]

A 'tertiary' relationship describes:

[l]overs who spend time together only once in a while or for a brief time . . . Their contact may be very intimate, but they are not an important part of each other's day to day life. [23]

I can say from personal experience that these terms are not comprehensive; but I do regard them as useful starting points for discussion. For example, I tell people that I have two primary partners, in addition to whom I have another partner who I don't live with but am certainly in a relationship with (she doesn't like to use the phrase 'secondary relationship' to describe this situation, for a variety of reasons). But when I first got together with one of those primaries, it was a tertiary relationship. Within a couple of weeks, it had clearly become a secondary relationship. Not long after that, it became apparent that it was "more than secondary" but "not quite primary". And then, when the partner in question moved in with me, it became a very definitely primary relationship.

Then there are words to describe the structure of polyamorous relationships. I would describe the relationship structure I have with my primary partners as a 'V' relationship: I am positioned at the base of the V, and both of my partners at the top. (This has also been referred to as a 'hinge' relationship, where I would be considered the 'hinge'). However, my experience has been that people tend to assume that I'm in what is often referred to as a 'triad', which is where each person is in a relationship with the other two people. However, my two primaries are not in a relationship with each other - other than being good friends. This often disappoints many straight guys, who, upon hearing that I have two female partners, entertain visions of hot lezzo action every night. It turns out that this is not in fact the case, for a few reasons: we don't all sleep in the same bed (despite it being king size, there's simply not enough room for three people to sleep, as distinct from other 's' activities); one of my partners is heterosexual, whilst the other is bi; and finally, one of my partners works nights, which means she's going to bed only a couple of hours before I get up.

But this is not necessarily typical of polyamorous relationships - in fact, when it comes to describing polyamory, it's probably best to avoid any notion of a 'typical' polyamorous relationship. A friend of mine, who has two partners, sleeps in the same bed with them; they had to get the bed and associated bedding made up specifically. Some people just do whatever - they sleep wherever they feel like sleeping. Many people, upon first hearing about polyamory, assume that there must be some kind of 'roster' arrangement involved. Whilst this arrangement does indeed occur, it's certainly not an inevitable feature of poly relationships. People ask "But then how do you know where to sleep?" My reply is "Hang on - are you saying that you have a partner and friends you socialise with? How do you know when to spend time with your partner and when to spend time with your friends?" It all very much depends on the needs and wants of all the people involved.

Other types of polyamorous relationships include group marriage, which is sometimes incorrectly used as a synonym for polyamory (incorrectly, since polyamory does not necessarily involve commitment ceremonies) and line marriage, which is a relationship where, as the existing participants in the relationship grow older, younger people are added to the relationship.

The FAQ for the alt.polyamory newsgroup also lists quads, pentacles, and sextets as other terms that have been used to describe other forms of polyamorous relationships.

I believe that the current debate about "gay marriage" (has anyone noticed that it's often referred to that way, instead of, as would be more accurate, "same-sex marriage"?) needs to be part of a wider discussion about the diversity of relationships that exist in our society. We need to look behind the propaganda about monogamy:

• that it's our 'natural' relationship style, and/or that any other relationship styles are 'unnatural' (as if something being 'natural' makes it right - after all, one only has to look at nature to find behaviours in animals that many people would consider highly immoral)

• that it's the 'best' relationship style for everyone, regardless of time or place or personal circumstances;

• that polyamory can't work, or that if it does, it can only do so for a limited period of time - that it is, in other words, not sustainable.

Widening the debate in this way would, I believe, assist those arguing in support of same-sex marriage by demonstrating that it's not just lesbians and gays who are living in relationships that aren't fully recognised by the state. Many people assume that the general public is 'not ready' to consider possibilities such as polyamory; and yet, as a historian of the gay and lesbian movements in Australia recently noted, it's turned out that the general public has typically been more progressive than legislators when it comes to issues of alternative sexualities and relationships. If that is indeed the case, we may hope that the Australian public becomes increasingly better educated on the realities of bisexuality and polyamory, such that both will move towards being accepted as valid and healthy forms of human intimacy.

Footnotes

1. A reader of this article pointed out that monogamy and racism are not morally equivalent. Whilst I think that enforced monogamy is unethical, I certainly feel it's incorrect to say that monogamy per se is unethical; whereas I believe that racism per se is inherently unethical. My point, however, was not to equate the two in terms of morality, but in terms of how people cite dubious rationales for being unwilling to challenge their beliefs. Bibliography

[1] A. Weber. "Survey Results: Who are we? And other interesting impressions", in Loving More Magazine Summer 2002, #30. p. 4. One-third of all 600 respondents declined to state sexual identity.

[2] Rebecca Kaplan. 1995. "Your fence is sitting on me", in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries & Visions, edited by Naomi Tucker. New York: Harrington Park Press. p. 270.

[3] "Sex in Australia: Summary findings of the Australian Study of Health and Relationships". Available online at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ashr/Sex In Australia Summary.pdf

[4] Private communication, May 2004.

[5] Source: http://www.pha.org.au/anzjph/anzjph/2003 Edition/Vol 27 no 2- April/234.htm

[6] Source: http://www.biresource.org/bothteams/tips.html

[7] Anthony F. Jorm, Ailsa E. Korten, Bryan Rodgers, Patricia A. Jacomb and Helen Christensen, 2002. "Sexual orientation and mental health: results from a community survey of young and middle-aged adults", in the British Journal of Psychiatry 180. pp. 423-427. Available at http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/180/5/423

[8] Angelene Falk, Legal and Policy Branch, Anti-Discrimination Board, "Coverage of bisexuality: Request from Lesbian and Gay Consultation", 8-8-2002.

[9] "Bisexual Perspective on NSW Anti-Discrimination Legislation" A paper delivered by Glenn Vassallo, Bi Pride Australia, on 25 February 2003, for the Anti-Discrimination Board's Mardi Gras Forum 2003. Available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adb.nsf/pages/bisexualperspective

[10] Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, "Australian Social Trends 2002, Family - State summary tables", available via http://www.abs.gov.au/

[11] Source: http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/WP20tables.html#table3 The entire report is available at http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html

[12] Source: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=5775

[13] Barash, David P. and Lipton, Judith Eve. 2001. The myth of monogamy: fidelity and infidelity in animals and people. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. pp. 11-12.

[14] ibid., p. 190.

[15] ibid., p. 190.

[16] ibid., p. 191.

[17] Private communication, May 2004.

[18] Easton, Dossie and Liszt, Catherine. 1997. The Ethical Slut: A guide to infinite sexual possibilities. San Francisco: Greenery Press. p. 133.

[19] Catherine Schwarz, George Davidson, Anne Seaton, Virginia Tebbit (eds.). 1988. Chambers English dictionary - 7th ed.. Edinburgh: W & R Chambers Ltd and Cambridge University Press. p. 765.

[20] ibid., p.477.

[21] Anapol, Deborah. 1997. Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits San Rafael: IntiNet Resource Center. p. 7.

[22] ibid., p. 7.

[23] ibid., p. 8.

• * *

Copyright (c) 2004, 2008 Alexis Hazell