We asexuals are also rarely portrayed, and if we are, rarer still as anything but a clueless nerd archetype. Probably more forgivable, though, as there are few easy ways to establish a character as such- and we're much less visible.
More on topic: as I mentioned over in Yack Fest, this sort of thing reminds me a bit of the one-drop racism in the antebellum period of the US: acknowledging that there are categories between "us" and "them" might lead to acceptance, and some folks just can't have that.
In the end, though, there isn't likely to be just one tidy explanation for the phenomenon.
Smile for me!
Well if porn is to be believed, bisexual women exist in large quantities. 
Another group that gets very little coverage by most media are polyamorists, beyond showing polygamist cults, occasionally, but that's like portraying bisexuals as sluts who can't commit to anyone, and sleep around with everyone, inaccurate and offensive.
But I agree that this is a major problem, and one that should really be fixed, somehow. Plus, Buffy always bothered me because it didn't even entertain the possibility that Willow was bi. -_-
While those examples are a bit troubling, I think the problem in media is more that it mostly ignores bisexuality rather than erasing it. Aside of the examples you posted, I can only think of The Underdogs, where the love interest turned out to be bisexual. We don't even see the girlfriend, and the TV cut of the movie doesn't even show the women kissing, just the guys' reaction. (And apparently she's open to polyamory, so it's kind of a weird case. It's a comedy though, so I'm not sure how seriously we're supposed to take it, and it doesn't really follow it up in the closing sequence.)
The thing is it's either just not mentioned, or described as youthful experimentation. Part of it might be that it's hard enough to get gay characters into any kind of mainstream media. Part of it might be how it's treated in the LGBT community itself. I don't know much about it, but the little I have heard tells me that even a minority group like this can see others as detrimental to themselves, or somehow as "cheating" in such a way as they can choose to live heteronormally, thus betraying the efforts for gay rights.
In short we're still having trouble of portraying people as people who might not be entirely heterosexual rather than portraying people as defined by their sexuality. Bisexuality seems to muddy the waters more than people in media seem to want.
Yes, I think a lot of people don't understand that Bisexuality is not the schroedinger's box of sexuality.
Was Aliroz the Confused
We asexuals are basically nonexistent in fiction. Like ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
said, we seem to be only clueless nerd archetypes.
I don't think that bisexuals really make for good story possibilities. I mean, you're compatible with everyone and potentially attracted to anyone. I guess it would feel cheap to resolve a romance that way.
edited 16th Jul '12 6:20:42 PM by ATC
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books
http://www.kenjiyoshino.com/articles/epistemiccontract.pdf
This paper posits that, essentially, both heterosexuals and homosexuals have a vested interest in making sex and sexuality into primary classification issues. Bisexuality threatens the idea that sexual orientation is a stable classification, and (stereotypically) de-emphasizes the role of gender in relationships.
I think he's vastly overrating the importance of political mobilization to homosexuals, personally; radical separatism is very fringe in the gay community (even radical-lesbian-separatist-feminism is at worst a Vocal Minority), and I really don't think homosexuals are somehow backing this because they see bisexuals as some kind of flight risk. That implies an organized cabal, and that's about the point where I get out the tinfoil hat.
If it's Suddenly Sexuality, then yes, it would be cheap to resolve a story that way. If a character was clearly bisexual already, then it just means that there's more pairing options for the character.
edited 16th Jul '12 6:27:25 PM by Ramidel
Bisexuality just means attracted to both genders, not attracted to everybody. A bisexual can have a preference for blacks or redheads or Asians, or believe in being celibate until marriage. It also doesn't mean you're suddenly open to the polyamorous solution, either, as a bisexual can have just as much desire to be monogamous as anyone else.
In short, bisexual does not equal a cheap and easy solution of the writer is competent.
edited 16th Jul '12 6:26:30 PM by AceofSpades
@ATC: As someone who is bisexual and polyamorous, I'm going to back up what Ace said. Not all bisexuals are polyamorous, and not all polyamorists are bisexual. Also, just because someone is polyamorous or bisexual doesn't mean that they prefer one-night stands to long-term committed relationships.
Furthermore, saying bisexuals are "compatible with everyone" is complete and utter bunk. That's like saying that straight guys are attracted to every woman. Not to mention that being polyamorous isn't a sort of free pass to screw anything that moves, since any potential partner has to be okay with the character having another partner as well.
Having a character that is bisexual (or polyamorous) isn't a "cheap and easy way out" any more than being straight is. If anything, it has great potential to be used for something with greater depth than the standard "guy gets the girl at the end", if only people would stop believing the stereotypes about bisexuals.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
I think what ATC means is, characters are compatible with everybody. Not real people.
As an author, you can make your gay character attracted to any male character you like, but you can't make them attracted to the female characters. Stuff like 'but do they suit this person' and 'but do their other partners approve of this' don't matter, because an author can fix it so that they don't.
Despite what a lot of authors say about characters having 'a life of their own', an author can make a character do anything and feel anything for anybody as long as it's consistent with their previous characterisation (and even sometimes if it isn't).
edited 16th Jul '12 7:18:33 PM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...
Like I said, it's not a cheap and easy solution if the writer is competent. That means making the character a person and not a walking sex piece. This applies to all sexualities, by the way.
@Loni: Except having a character that's attracted to everyone is a really terrible character concept and is (like I said) ignoring a lot of potential.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Yes, I realise that; but what I think ATC was saying is that an author has more options for who the character can be attracted to. Not that authors could just have them attracted to everybody.
Be not afraid...
I think a lot of people force matches when writing without good reason, and bisexuals complicate this.
@Loni: I don't know, because he went on to say that having a bisexual character makes it "feel cheap to resolve a romance that way." which leads me to believe that he views all bisexuals as stereotypical "fuck anything and everything".
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Hmm. OK, well, ATC can explain what they meant by that... I'm not sure how you 'resolve' a romance with bisexuality anyway, unless the resolution is that they ditch the initial person and go for someone else of the opposite gender.
Be not afraid...
Was Aliroz the Confused
I don't view them that way. Not at all!
I just think that that is how the General Public views them, given how simplified and exaggerated things get in the switch to fiction, I think that, in the hands of a lazy author, it would feel like a cop-out.
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books
Have them naturally fall in love with someone of either gender? Falling in love is a thing that happens. Or have them decide they don't need the protagonist and go off on a Caribbean cruise, that works too.
Hm.
This thread feels like it should belong on Trope Talk. Although it generally gets less traffic than OTC, so maybe this thread should stay here? Bah, whatever.
I also just think that, unless one of the story's big focus is on romance, the romance is often contrived so that x available person falls for y available person, and when you open up options by making bisexuals that complicates things for both readers and writers because they are so used to the only requirement for romance happening being compatible age and sexual orientation.
Changing that formula up is in no way a bad thing. Actually, what with media taking more and more to the internet, I think that formula is getting shook up somewhere.
It's about the representation of bisexual people and bisexuality in media, not about specific tropes.
Street Writing Man
There's a common misconception among most people that bisexual = complete slut who will fuck anything that moves. This is a problem with both audiences and the writers who serve them, so outside of porn bisexuals don't get mentioned really.
Also, because of the problems several people have mentioned, its impossible to do The Reveal of a character to be bisexual midway through any series without people whining about how that's "too easy" (never mind the fact that it doesn't happen ever). A character needs to be established as bi early on, and no series that I know of has really taken that step yet.
Oh, and as to the OP's example using Buffy, That is unfortunately totally Truth in Television. Bisexuals have historically gotten heat from everyone; straights don't treat them well (bi guys might as well be gay, bi girls get pigeonholed as sluts who are good for threesome fodder and not much else), homosexuals often don't like them, sometimes viciously so (I've heard them referred to as "gays who can't commit") *, and the conservatives...well, if they acknowledge a bi person as a person, that's a victory in and of itself.
That's why you don't see bisexual characters in TV series; there's no market...or rather, no one in Hollywood knows what the market looks like. There's so much ambiguity in bisexuality that mainstream television isn't sure what to do. I think it is bullshit, but there it is.
EDIT: Actually, there is a bisexual character we can discuss...Inara Serra. She's shown taking both male and female clients during the series, and its made explicitly clear that Companions get wide latitude in choosing whom they take as clients. Also, through the dialogue it's also made clear that she finds her time with the female politician relaxing.
So, while she obviously finds men attractive (she cries when Mal hooks up with her friend, they have Blatant Sexual Tension, etc) she also enjoys the sensual company of women.
edited 17th Jul '12 12:57:07 AM by drunkscriblerian
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
Happy New Year!
I'm not going to unleash a torrent of anger fan rage or anything but when has bisexuality (or lack of it) ever come up in Sherlock?
edited 17th Jul '12 5:32:32 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
Casual Banshee
I was just using Sherlock and Jodi Picoult's books as examples of works where the concept of bisexuality is generally ignored and people are primarily referred to as gay or straight with no aknowledgement that some people like both genders.
Sherlock seems as though he may be asexual (I've only seen two of the episodes, though), but then again, he does seem to have Ambiguous Disorder, similar to how Sheldon is portrayed as an asexual with Ambiguous Disorder in The Big Bang Theory.
edited 18th Jul '12 1:37:05 PM by CasualBanshee
"Heroes don't get anything but dead." ~ The lovely Laurell K. Hamilton (I guess that explains why Anita Blake is still alive).
(Not a frequent forum user, so please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post).
It's common knowledge that not all media wants to acknowledge bisexuals. By bisexuals, I don't mean the sort of “just for fun” faux-bisexuals that Katy Perry sings about, but the real deal: men and women who are sexually interested in both men and women.
In the worlds of Sherlock and the best-selling novels of Jodi Picoult, bisexuals don't exist. Sadly, this is increasingly common in both literature and television.
However, some forms of media seem to be determined to prove that bisexuality is a myth and nothing more. The television show Buffy The Vampire Slayer depicted Willow with several male love interests, but later she came out of the closet as a lesbian and promptly procured several female love interests.
The accompanying comic books feature Buffy hooking up with a girl, but Buffy stops because she is "not a dyke." While it is not unusual for people to experiment with their sexuality, there was never any sort of acknowledgement that people can enjoy both genders. Later, Kennedy says to Satsu, "You're not the only fool to ever wrinkle the sheets with a straight girl," which, arguably, is fair, given the situation.
But the possibility that Buffy may be bisexual still isn't mentioned: her heterosexuality is treated as a given. Geez, guys, why wouldn't Buffy be straight? Other than sexing up another girl multiple times, of course.
Glee in particular seems to harbor a rancor for bisexuals. In the midst of second season, brimming with its Anvilicious Gay Aseop that intolerance for gays is wrong, Ryan Murphy shows his hypocrisy by treating us to his rant, through his Author Avatar Kurt, which consists of his intolerance for bisexuals.
In the episode Blame It On The Alcohol, the audience is teased with the possibility of a gay character, Blaine, being bisexual, but the idea is shot to hell in this stunning display of ignorance:
“Bisexual’s a term that gay guys in high school use when they wanna hold hands with girls and feel like a normal person for a change.” [1]
But no, you say, this is Kurt's character flaw. His prejudice will be used to highlight the issues many bisexuals face today. Ryan Murphy wouldn't disparage bisexuality in the middle of a season all about how much gay-bashing sucks and how everyone should accepting of everyone else's sexuality.
But at the end of the episode, after a single kiss with one girl, Blaine reassures us: he's "one hundred percent gay."
Ryan Murphy's thoughts? "Blaine is NOT bi. He is gay, and will always be gay. I think it's very important to young kids that they know this character is one of them." [2]
Pssh. Why would bisexual kids need a role model? After all, bisexuals don't exist, guys. Get with it.
From the same show, Santana was depicted as aggressively interested in boys and in her friend, Brittany. But halfway through season two, she's suddenly a lesbian. Who would've guessed?
The remaining character who may be bisexual is Brittany, who has shown avid interest in both guys and girls. But she's a Too Dumb to Live Adult Child who can't understand the meaning of cheating on a significant other, and she describes herself as "fluid" and a "bicorn" rather than "bisexual."
So, the one unconfirmed bisexual character is not only the stereotypical bisexual who'll sleep Anything That Moves, but she refuses to refer to her bisexuality by name. Swell.
And how about print media?
As some of you may know, Marvel Comics character Julie Power, A.K.A. Lightspeed, came out as bisexual months ago. And The Fandom Rejoiced- finally, bisexuals were acknowledged. [3]
Formerly a child in the Power Pack, Julie is now almost an adult, and alongside Striker, a gay male teenage, features as a regular cast member in Avengers Academy.
In the midst of paging though Marvel's Children's Crusade, I was looked up the bio of another bisexual comicbook hero: Rictor, the longtime companion of Shatterstar. And I found that apparently, he's gay now.
From Marvel Comics Database:
"Rictor is now openly gay. Rictor has seemed to suggest he has always known deep down that he was gay and was deep in the closet."
"Peter David explains Rictor's prior straight relationships with Boom Boom and Wolfsbane, Peter David compares Rictor to real-life 'women who eventually decided they were lesbians, had involvements with men that they ultimately considered unfulfilling.'" [4]
From Rictor's entry on Wikipedia:
"David writes Rictor's embrace of his love for Shatterstar as a maturation for the character, whom he sees 'fully committed to the gay lifestyle... honest about it both with others and himself.'"
"As David sees it, newly out bisexual Shatterstar is like a kid in a candy store, whereas Rictor is ready to fully commit." [5]
Rictor's partner, Shatterstar, appears to have remained bisexual. I always had the impression he was pansexual, but I'm not familiar with his character, so I couldn't tell you if any changes occurred there.
But this is just more of the same: bisexual people can't commit, males who believe that they're bisexual are just not "being honest with themselves." I'm sick and tired of this mentality, and it frustrates me to no end.
Do gay characters have a right to exist? Definitely. Should gay characters exist? No question: of course.
But do gay characters have a right to exist at the cost of bisexuals? Should bisexuals be erased from media in favor of homosexuals? Why does the latter seem to occur with startling regularity? Don’t people believe that bisexuals can coexist alongside gays?
Not to generalize, but it seems that some gay people have it out for bisexuals. Not to say that all gays everywhere despise bisexuals with the burning passion of a thousand fiery suns, but there does appear to be evidence of bitterness toward bisexuals from a few gay people. Hence this post [6]
, and the existence of a Face Book group entitled, "True Gay's!! No Bisexuals."
Judging from the creation the No Bisexuals trope, it appears that some heterosexuals also don't feel that bisexuals should be acknowledged. Perhaps that's why popular television programs don't want to feature bisexuals- they risk isolating parts of both their gay and straight fanbase by incorporating the very idea of legitimate bisexuality. But who cares about bisexuals, if they even exist, right?(*)
This raises interesting questions:
And not to mention, pansexuality, tanssexuality, and other sexualities aren't exactly given a ton of positive press by the media. Yes, there's Doctor Who for pansexuals, and transsexuality is sometimes featured on Degrassi and the occasional Law And Order episode. But there seems to be little more than that.
(*) This is not to say that all gay and straight people hate bisexuals. I am only commenting on prevalent attitudes of certain factions within those groups.
"Heroes don't get anything but dead." ~ The lovely Laurell K. Hamilton (I guess that explains why Anita Blake is still alive).