Introduction to the Special Issue: EuroBiReCon: (Inter)National Research Frontiers

ABSTRACT

This guest editorial is dedicated to introducing the First European Bisexual Research Conference, its theme, and, most importantly, the contributions to this special issue. I briefly discuss the specific context of this conference to explain its European focus, embeddedness in Dutch bisexual activism, and its standing on shoulders of giants (in particular the UK Bi(Re)Con). Secondly, I introduce the theme of the conference, (inter)national research frontiers, which reveals our conviction that contact zones are key to further advancing bisexual theorizing and connecting these studies with broader disciplinary and, sometimes, interdisciplinary theories of the social sciences. Thirdly, I provide a short picture or impression of the conference itself to show the diversity in contributions and research frontiers. Finally, and most importantly, I discuss relevant research frontiers to contextualize and introduce the contributions of this special issue.

keywords:

• research frontiers
• bisexuality research
• Europe
• BiCon

Introduction to the conference

The publication of this special issue is a result from organizing the First European Bisexual Research Conference (EuroBiReCon) on 28 and 29 July 2016 at the University of Amsterdam and, on the second day, at a local community center in Amsterdam together with the European Bisexual Conference.¹ The research conference stems from a wish by Dutch bisexual activists and organizers—in particular the former chairman of the Landelijk Netwerk Biseksualiteit (Dutch Bisexual Network/Netherlands Network for Bisexuality) Erwin Heyl–to create a hybrid space for academics, activists, and policy makers to discuss international research on bisexuality. The Dutch organized bisexual community always had an international outlook with organizing, among others, the First International Bisexual Conference (1991) and the First European Bisexual Conference in Rotterdam (2001). This international outlook is no surprise seeing the lack of attention for bisexuality in Dutch research (see, e.g., Oosterhuis & Lipperts, 2013) and the relatively small number of bisexual activists and groups in the Netherlands (e.g., Maliepaard, 2017).

The EuroBiReCon, and the subsequent European Bisexual Conference (29, 30, 31 July 2016), are a product of not only the efforts of people from the Dutch organized bisexual community, but also the international collaboration. The international outlook resulted in strong ties with activists and researchers outside the Netherlands, in particular with members of the U.K. bisexual communities. In fact, the annual UK BiCon (since 1984) and biannual UK BiReCon, since 2010 (see Barker. Richards, Jones, & Monro, 2011) provided a solid basis for organizing both conferences, in particular because of the magnitude of this conference; a magnitude that is beyond the range of visitors and organization of the annual Holland BiCon event or any other event that is regularly organized by Dutch bisexual activists, academics, and others. We, the organizing committee, happily accepted Barker et al.’s (2011) invitation to use the BiReCon name and to structure our event along similar lines as the UK BiReCon. We are grateful to bisexual activists from the United Kingdom for making use of existing networks, programs, and experiences for organizing EuroBiReCon. as these had a huge impact on the preparations and actual organization of the two conferences. In fact, the EuroBiReCon is literally standing and building on the shoulders of pioneers from the U.K. bisexual community.

This special issue is dedicated to showing the diversity in contributions and hopefully can be an inspiration for further research in the research frontiers. In total seven of the 24 conference presentations are included in this special issue and encompass themes such as bisexuality and culture, bisexuality in relationships, bisexual identities, and bisexuality at work. I first discuss the conference theme and my impression of the conference, before introducing the actual contributions to this special issue.

Conference theme

We, Caroline Walters and I, choose to stick to a broad theme to advance knowledge and connect participants from different backgrounds. The emphasis on “(inter)national” reflects our uneasiness with the Anglo-American dominance of bisexual theorizing (e.g., MacDowall, 2009). Indeed if I would write a progress report on bisexual studies I would come up with similar conclusions as Surya Monro (2015) in Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories who addresses this dominance. With uneasiness, I do not refer to the contribution of U.K.-based researchers and activists who conduct inspiring research and contribute to the empowerment of bisexual individuals and groups, but it refers to a concern that (1) bisexuality research needs to be stimulated across continental Europe and that (2) dissemination of knowledge and research outcomes is often hindered because of the Anglo-American dominance in academia in general. Although Monro chose case studies outside of Europe, that is, India and Columbia, our mission was to provide a starting point for (mainly) European researchers to share their research, receive feedback, build networks, and discuss collaborations between academics and activists.

The European focus also stems from the specific time and space of the conference: EuroPride 2016 in Amsterdam. EuroPride, organized since 1992, is a cultural, social, and political festival and is annually held in a different European city and, often, organized by the local Gay Pride organizations. The European Pride Organizers Association (EPOA) decided to license the Amsterdam Gay Pride to organize EuroPride 2016 on the basis of their bid book called join our freedom (see European Pride Organisers Association, n.d.). Our proposals for the Third European Bisexual Conference and EuroBiReCon, coordinated by the Landelijk Netwerk Biseksualiteit, were included in this winning bid book. EuroPride 2016 took place in Amsterdam from 23 July until 7 August.

The theme “research frontiers” is dedicated to the slowly growing body of literature on bisexuals and bisexuality in, and beyond, the social sciences. We drew inspiration from work within the field of political geography, in particular work on frontiers and boundaries, in the naming of this conference. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, there is a clear demarcation between both terms (but, indeed, not in every language). Already in 1959, Kristof reviewed existing literature on both concepts. He argued that, linguistically, frontier means “in front.” In other words, frontiers are about being the forefront. The forefront implies dynamics and providing space for looking outside and beyond one's comfort zone(s). By looking outside the frontier people may interact with people in other frontiers: people with different histories, ways of life, walks of life, and knowledge. Boundaries emphasize an orientation toward the inside, toward the hinterland, and thus, have a protective and divisive nature. Kristof argues that frontiers imply conversations and integration with these different knowledges, ways of life, and walks of life.

Caroline Walters and I were convinced that research frontiers, or contact zones, are the key to further advance bisexual theorizing and connecting these studies with broader disciplinary and, sometimes, interdisciplinary theories of the social sciences. I found inspiration in, for instance, conversations between queer theory and bisexuality (e.g., Anderlini-D'Onofrio & Alexander, 2009; Voss, Browne & Gupta, 2014) to engage with broader social theories to further understandings of the social realities of bisexual people. Around the same time of our first call for papers, the early summer of 2015, Monro (2015) engages with, among others, interactionism, intersectionality, citizenship studies, and Bourdieu's theory of practice to discuss bisexual identities, communities, policies, and lived experiences to understand different aspects of the everyday lives of bisexual people but also their community experiences (also Monro, 2016). Although Monro aims to position bisexual theorizing as one research frontier to engage with wider social theories, we decided, for the sake of this conference, to create smaller research frontiers that integrate different theories and/or look beyond bisexual theorizing. By focusing on research frontiers we also aimed to shift the focus from addressing the invisibility, and/or erasure, of bisexuality in society and social sciences (e.g. Monro, Hines & Osborne, 2017; Yoshino 2000) and the legitimization of bisexuality as a true and authentic sexual identity, the so-called reparative studies (MacDowall, 2009), to focusing on differences, overlaps, and intersections with existing social theories—perhaps a more proactive approach to shift ourselves from the margins to the center of a number of disciplines.

The emphasis on “(inter)national” was also meant to provide opportunities for presenters to present and discuss their national or regional research frontiers, in particular for researchers outside the United Kingdom. One example of these national research frontiers is a contribution by Vivi Jelstrum and Dan Bowring (2016) who analyzed the Danish national health survey to provide a picture of the health and well-being of adult bisexuals. They, for instance, show that young bisexuals (between age 15 and 34) suffer from poorer health and significant more stress as compared to heterosexuals, gay men, and lesbians from the same age. Bisexuals in this age group also experience more sexual problems as compared to people with the aforementioned other sexual identities. A number of other presenters discussed research findings on health and well-being of bisexuals in the Netherlands (Van Lisdonk 2016), biphobia and its impacts on the mental health of bisexual people in Spain (Portero, Montero & Meriner 2016), and a more general study on the mental health and well-being of bisexual men and women in Spain (Martin-Pérez et al., 2016). Despite our attempts to stimulate research from other European countries, we only partly succeeded in creating a truly European conference. I hope, however, that this special issue provides another stimulant for researchers from continental Europe to engage with bisexual theorizing and explore intersections between existing social theories and bisexual theorizing.

The conference

The theme “research frontiers” provided the possibility to proactively attract not only multi- or interdisciplinary contributions, but also contributions from disciplines such as law, philosophy, theology, and arts. EuroBiReCon consisted of two keynotes, two workshops, one panel discussion, and seven tracks with presentations. We attracted more than 150 visitors (most of them combined this conference with EuroBiCon) who came from, among others, Australia, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and the United States. Most presenters were either working in academia or PhD students, but two presentations were given by members of national Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender organizations from, respectively, Denmark and Spain.

The keynotes by Surya Monro and Alex Iantaffi, respectively, opened the conference and closed the first day of the conference at the University of Amsterdam. Surya Monro addressed in her opening keynote the current state of bisexual research such as the dominance of activist and autobiographical literature, the focus on reparative studies, the success of bivisibility studies, and the relatively isolated development of bisexual theorizing as interactions with wider sexualities and social theories are lacking. This final observation is particularly helpful for a conference focusing on research frontiers and contact zones with wider social theories. On the basis of her 2015 book Monro identified conversations between bisexual theorizing and social (and cultural) theories such as interactionism, citizenship studies, postcolonial theory and more. Finally, on a more personal note, Monro stressed the importance of mutual care, one of the core characteristics of the bisexual community, as societal pressures on minority groups are on the increase; bisexual people are invited to take care of one another, and of themselves, to cope with these tensions and vulnerabilities.

Alex Iantaffi, in their closing keynote, spoke about the impact of marginalization and the delegitimization of bisexual identities and desires on the health of bisexual people in the United States: biphobia, bisexual erasure, microaggressions, and stereotyping are phenomena that highly contribute to this delegitimization together with normalization politics. Furthermore, Iantaffi made a convincing and inspiring case–it is impossible to grasp their passion in words, but it must be sufficient to say that it was a fabulous closing of the day–for individual and collective, intersectional, resilience to contribute to personal growth and to empower bi+ communities and individuals.

The workshops were planned on the second day—the first day of the European Bisexual Conference in an Amsterdam local community center after an opening session in the Old Evangelical-Lutheran Church—to maximize the attendance of bisexual activists and other visitors, besides researchers, and dealt with respectively bisexuality and aging and attracting research funding via the EU-led Erasmus exchange programs. Finally, we scheduled a panel discussion on activism and academia on this second day to close the conference by discussing the interactions, and intersections, between bisexual researchers and activists/LGBTI+ organizations. This panel, chaired by Robyn Ochs, with Surya Monro and Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli as panelists, made clear that though activism and academia may overlap in personal motivations and experiences, steps need to be taken to better valorize our research output outside academic contexts. Several issues that were discussed can be observed in Barker et al. (2011) such as “How can the gap between the research that communities want, and the resources that are available to carry out that research, be bridged?” (p. 166) and “What research needs to be done for bisexual communities?” (p. 166). It remains a challenge to connect with bisexual people, despite the personal motivations of academics and the often short ties with bisexual communities, organizations, and people.

The seven tracks, consisting of three or four contributions/presentations each, already show the diversity in research frontiers and topics: bisexuality and well-being, bisexual experience, bisexuality and relationships, bisexual identities, bisexual communities, bisexual experiencers and work, and finally bisexuality and culture. It would be an act of blatant arrogance to propagate that these tracks and the research frontiers in these tracks are all new and/or identified by the conference organizers. Of course, some research frontiers can be observed in the aforementioned UK BiReCons and, over the years, a lot of studies published in this journal and elsewhere. Unfortunately I cannot discuss all presentations in this editorial (see Table 1 for an overview of all tracks, presentations and presenters). It is also beyond the scope of this editorial to include a progress report on bisexual studies, theorizing, and interactions with other social theories, however the next section aims to contextualize the different contributions of this special issue.

Table 1. Program.

Day 1	Venue: University of Amsterdam
08.30	Registration opens
09.00	Introduction Emiel Maliepaard & Caroline Walters Word of welcome for all attendants
09.15	Keynote Professor Dr. Surya Monro, University of Huddersfield, Title: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?
10.00	Comfort Break
10.15	Parallel Session 1 (4 papers per track, 2 hours) Bisexuality and Well-Being Bisexual Experience
12.15	Lunch
13.15	Parallel Session 2 (4 papers per track, 2 hours) Bisexuality & Relationships Bisexual identities
15.15	Comfort Break
15.30	Parallel Session 3 (3 papers per track, 1.5 hours) Bisexual Communities Bisexual Experience and Work
17.00	Comfort Break
17.15	Keynote Dr. Alex Iantaffi, University of Minnesota, Title: At the Intersection of Bi+ Identities, Experiences, Research, and Organizing
18.00	Drinks at De Shakespeare Club (sponsored by COC Netherlands)
Day 2	Venue: Community Center Boomspijker
14.00	Session 4 (4 papers, 2 hours) Bisexuality and Culture Workshop 1 Title: Funding EU partnerships on bisexuality through Erasmus +
15.15	Comfort Break
15.30	Workshop 2 Title: Bisexuality and Aging
16.45	Comfort Break
17.00	Panel Academics and Activists Title: Crossing Lines: Academics and Activists
Theme	Title of Paper	Presenter(s)
Session 1a
Bisexuality & well-being	A survey of United Kingdom (UK) Bisexuals' Experiences of Emotional Distress Support	Grant Denkinson (University of Leicester, UK)
Bisexuality & well-being	Young Bisexual Danish Women Show Significantly Poorer Health and Wellbeing than the General Female Population and even Lesbians	Vivi Jelstrup & Dan Bowring (LGBT Denmark, Denmark)
Bisexuality & well-being	Bisexual-Specific Microaggressions and Mental Health	Wendy Bostwick (Northern Illinois University, USA)
Bisexuality & well-being	Bisexual Men and Women Mental Health Outcomes and Perceived Health Status Disparities in Spain	Alberto Martín-Pérez; Elena González; Nayra Marrero; Jenifer Rebollo (FELGTB; National LGBT Federation, Spain)
Session 1b
Bisexual experience	Bisexuality in Education: Erasure, Exclusion by Inclusion and Its Absence	Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli (Deakin University, Australia)
Bisexuality experience	Older People with Some Relationship to the Identity “Bisexual”	Rebecca L. Jones (Open University, UK)
Bisexual experience	Intersections and Alliances: Bisexual Movement and Trans Depathologization Activism	Amets Suess (Andalusian School of Public Health, Spain)
Bisexual experience	Bisexuality in the Netherlands: A Picture Based on Survey Studies and Methodological Reflections	Jantine van Lisdonk (Rutgers, Netherlands)
Session 2a
Bisexuality & relationships	Bisexual Women & Monogamy	Sarah Jane Daly (University of Huddersfield, UK)
Bisexuality & relationships	“When MOREs Are Too Much”: Mixed-Orientation Relationships as “Outside Belonging”	Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli (Deakin University, Australia)
Bisexuality & relationships	Coming Out Twice: Narratives of Bisexuality and Consensual Non-Monogamies in Italy	Beatrice Gusmano (University of Coimbra, Portugal)
Bisexuality & relationships	Bisexuality, Slippery Slopes and Multipartner Marriage	Christian Klesse (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK)
Session 2b
Bisexuality identities	Bi-Erasure in LGBT Affirming Biblical Exegeses	Carol Shepherd (University of Winchester, UK)
Bisexuality identities	Does Allah Love Bisexual Muslims?	Mehrdad Alipour (VU, Netherlands)
Bisexual identities	How Bisexuality and other Plurisexual Identities Can Make Us Question Sexual Orientation Categories	Miguel Minol (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain)
Bisexual identities	Dis-Orienting Sexuality: Moving Beyond the Bi	Cara Judea Alhadeff (UC Santa Cruz, USA)
Session 3a
Bisexual communities	The Role of LGB Community Involvement on Internalized Biphobia	Amanda M Pollitt (University of Arizona, USA) & Tangela S. Roberts (University of Massachusetts Boston, USA)
Bisexuality communities	‘Hemmed In and Weeded Out’: Bisexual People of Colour and the BiCon Experience	Jacq Applebee (Activist, UK) and Helen Bowes-Catton (Open University, UK)
Bisexual communities	National Survey about Homophobia and Biphobia. A Project for Human Rights Visibilization and Defense in Spain	Isabel Portero (Complutense University of Madrid, Spain), Esperanza Montero (Activist, Spain) & Raúl Merinero (University Complutense of Madrid, Spain)
Session 3b
Bisexual experience & work	The Actionable Bisexual: Bisexuality in the Workplace	Milena Popova (UWE Bristol, UK)
Bisexual experience & work	Bisexuals and Workplace	Skylar Leslie (Leiden University, Netherlands)
Bisexual experience & work	Bridging Bisexual Erasure in LGBT-Rights Discourse and Litigation	Nancy Marcus (Indiana Tech Law School, USA)
Session 4a
Bisexuality & culture	“How could Any One Relationship Ever Possibly Be Fulfilling?”: Bisexuality, Polyamory and the Visualisation of Desire in the Cinema of Gregg Araki	Jacob Engelberg (Film Programmer, UK)
Bisexuality & culture	Literary Representation of Bisexuality and Impossibility of Bisexual Identity	Petar Odak (Center for Women's Studies, Croatia)
Bisexuality & culture	Textual Immaturity: Bisexuality, Textuality and Adolescence	Joseph Ronan (University of Brighton, UK)
Bisexuality & culture	The Queer Mermaid: An Alternative Approach towards LGBTQ+ in Computer Games	Martine Mussies (Independent researcher, Netherlands)
Session	Workshop titles	Presenter
4b	Funding EU Partnerships on Bisexuality through Erasmus+	Sandra Hopkins (University of Chester, UK)
5	Bisexuality and Aging	Sue George (Activist, UK), Nickie Roome (Activist, UK) & Rebecca Jones (Open University, UK)
6	Crossing Lines: Academics & Activists	Robyn Ochs (Activist, USA), Meg John Barker (Open University, UK) & Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli (Deakin University, Australia)

Introducing the special issue

As mentioned before, this special issue consists of a selection of seven contributions out of 24 presentations at EuroBiReCon. Due to a variety of reasons not all tracks have been included in this special issue, but I am convinced that the contributions provide a solid contribution to opening up research frontiers and/or engaging with existing research frontiers.

Bisexuality and relationships

As Klesse (2011) observes, bisexuality and relationships, as a research topic, only emerged in the 1980s because of a concerns regarding men who have sex with men (MSM) and men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) and the starting AIDS epidemic. The number of studies has shown a sharp increase since the 2000s and deal with a plethora of topics such as identification, stereotyping, negotiating compulsory coupledom, and more. The Journal of Bisexuality in particular has been an important outlet for studies on bisexuality and relationships (e.g., Anderson, Scoats, & McCormack 2015; Armstrong & Reissing, 2014; Gustavson, 2009; Kangasvuo, 2011; Klesse, 2011; McLean, 2004; Pennington, 2009), but several studies were published in other journals such as Christian Klesse's twin publications on polyamory and nonmonogamies in bisexual people (Klesse, 2005, 2006), Annukka Lahti's (2015) article on Finnish bisexual women's negotiations of discourses on romantic love and sameness to heterosexual couples, and Renate Baumgartner's (2017) recent article on Austrian bisexual women's internalized binegativity regarding relationship options and stereotypes.

Beatrice Gusmano (in this issue) uses an intersectional approach to render visible the sexual identity negotiations of polyamorous bisexual people in Rome. Gusmano applies Greimas’ semiotic square model to coming out to argue that the polyamorous bisexual participants actively can choose to come out or stay invisible depending on their sociospatial realities but mostly are compulsory invisible. Gusmano coins the term “compulsory invisibility” to argue that polyamorous bisexual people are not recognized as such because of the organization of the Italian society. The Italian context is understood as important for its essentialist focus on heterosexuality and monogamy, but also the particular living situations of the participants, “still depending on their families for material needs such as income and housing, as often happens in Southern Europe.” Not surprisingly, Gusmano embraces McLean's (2007) conclusion that the coming out imperative does not fit the realities of bisexual people in the Mediterranean context and, finally, poses questions about the impacts of current societal developments in Italy such as the recent approval of same-sex civil unions.

Christian Klesse (in this issue) makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the links between race, bisexuality, and conservative slippery slope arguments against same-sex marriage. Klesse contends that “analysing the slippery slope dynamic is important for understanding both the conditionality of the persisting hostility against consensual non-monogamies and LGBTQ intimacies and the shape of social movement politics that aim to challenge it” (p. ). He argues that movements that refuse and challenge same-sex marriage need to be understood as consolidating “American intimacies” and “traditional family values,” that is, consolidating monogamy that finds its origins in ‘Christian’ values and European contexts. Furthermore, Klesse's analysis of publicist Stanley Kurtz’ essays for conservative periodicals such as the National Review and The Weekly Standard reveals that Kurtz’ quest against same-sex marriage rests particularly on his conviction that there is an innate connection between bisexuality and polyamory: same-sex marriage will lead to bisexual marriage to plural marriage. Klesse, finally, makes a case for understanding family law as protecting the diversity of family and care relationships and therefore embraces the slippery slope arguments of anti-same-sex marriage activists.

Bisexuality and work

A growing body of literature has developed around bisexuality and the workplace, in particular survey studies on coming out, discrimination, and negative experiences. Research has been conducted in, among others, the United States of America (Green, Payne, & Green, 2011), United Kingdom (Chamberlain, 2009), The Netherlands (Kuyper, 2013), and Germany (Köllen, 2013). An underlying assumption in most research is that being out as bisexual, or feel at ease to disclose one's bisexual identity leads to a happier life (e.g., Green et al., 2011), including a more satisfactory and productive life at the workplace. It has been concluded that:

a more supportive working climate for bisexuals is positively related to a more open handling of one's bisexuality in the workplace. (…) it is proposed that a supportive climate is negatively related to the tendency of concealing one's bisexuality or pretending to be heterosexual in the workplace. (Köllen, 2013, pp. 131–132)

Research from The Netherlands, for instance, has shown that bisexuals are less open about their sexuality but also experience more discrimination, bullying, and mental health difficulties at work as compared to straight, gay, and lesbian employees (Kuyper, 2013).

Milena Popova (in this issue) discusses how bisexuality is not understood as actionable by Human Resource (HR) personnel, and LGBT employee resource groups. Popova argues that:

bisexual employees’ specific need for having their identity recognized regardless of their relationship status is therefore frequently overlooked, leading to feelings of isolation and alienation. This is true for bisexual people in same-gender and different-gender relationships, as well as those who are single.

These feelings of isolation and alienation may be stronger for bisexual people who identity as transgender and/or nonbinary, and the ones who are in nonmonogamous relationships. Popova furthermore argues that this inactionability of bisexuality alters how bisexual people are able to use strategies such as “signalling, normalizing and differentiating in managing their coming and staying out” (p. . Popova's argument for strategic agency (and normalization techniques) to ameliorate the unspeakability and inactionability of bisexuality at work is supported by an honest reflection of their own experience as a LGBT diversity and inclusion practitioner.

Bisexuality, law, and same-sex marriage

In a special issue on sexual citizenship it is noted that work that focuses on the relation between the state and bisexuality is rather absent (Bell & Binnie, 2006; Cooper, 2006). Studies on bisexual citizenship, or that take into account the relation between the state and bisexuality, are on the rise. Books by Monro (2005), Monro and Richardson (2012), and articles such a Yoshino (2000) and Maliepaard (2015) aim to conceptualize bisexual citizenship. To do so, their focus is on identifying the needs for bisexual citizenship by arguing that bisexuality is often ignored or erased in existing policies and arguing that bisexual people have specific needs that need to be addressed by local and national government policies.

Nancy Marcus (in this issue) focuses on the penetration of bisexual erasure into, and its detrimental effects within, LGBT-rights litigation and other legal contexts. This article extends her focus from only the U.S. context (see Marcus, 2015) to various (European) contexts and also addresses the question why bisexual erasure matters, for instance regarding refugee and/or asylum cases. Discussing three cases that “came before the European Court on Human Rights in which same-sex couples sought marriage rights or the equivalent,” Marcus concludes that the European Court on Human Rights (EHCR) uses the terms “homosexual relationships” and “same-sex relationships” interchangeably, also mirroring the language of the people who brought the cases to the EHCR. Nevertheless, Marcus observes a step towards more bi-inclusivity by several mentions of bisexual people such as in the Case of Oliari. She finally advocates for contact zones between law scholars and social scientists by concluding that social scientists:

have a role to play in legal discourse, having the ability to collect and report disaggregated data capturing the needs and issues of the bisexual community, and to help legal advocates and courts to incorporate such findings into legal discourse, litigation, and jurisprudence. (p. )

Bisexuality in culture

One of the common misunderstandings, or stereotypes, about bisexuality is its status as an immature sexual identity or as a stage in someone's sexual development toward a stable monosexual gay/lesbian or heterosexual attraction, desire, and identity (e.g., Erickson-Schroth & Mitchell, 2009; MacDowall, 2009); a misunderstanding that also penetrated the minds of bisexual people themselves (e.g., Maliepaard, 2017). Joseph Ronan (in this issue) shifts away from the tendency to advocate for more bisexual representation toward examining bisexual representation in existing texts. Ronan embraces the stereotype of bisexual immaturity to analyze the well-known Buddha of Suburbia: the novel as well as the series and the David Bowie album. He understands the Buddha of Suburbia as “a contemporary bisexual ‘coming-of-age’ assemblage” and examines immaturity to explore “how the texts’ own waywardness, and the non-linear intercourse between novel, adaption, and album, might continue the task of critiquing developmental imperatives” (p. ). In this, Ronan uses ‘bitextuality’—a term used to indicate a number of different relationships between bisexuality and certain textual or narrative forms—and coins the term “textual immaturity” to criticize a cultural discourse that valorizes maturity in a way it becomes a repressive norm in itself: behaving in such a way to uphold a heteronormative status quo. Ronan firmly connects this prioritization of maturity with monosexism and bi-erasure.

Jacob Engelberg (in this issue) critically analyzes the works of Greg Araki as Araki's oeuvre is populated by invocations of bisexuality, in particular characters who desire people from the same sex and other sexes. In his analysis of works such as Three Bewildered People in the Night and Nowhere, Engelberg notes that, the visual imperative to depict two gendered aims being what makes bisexuality legible in Araki's films “works to reify the gender binary and reinforce the idea that bisexuality consists of two gendered and genital aims” () which makes bisexuality, thus, an unfulfilling desire. Engelberg critically explores how Araki's films render bisexuality visible and concludes that “it is obvious that nonmonogamy is employed for its potential to represent visual and temporal simultaneity within a monosexist signifying economy” (). This is problematic because of “the limiting and biphobic consequences of collusion with monosexist episteme in visual representation” (). Engelberg vividly concludes that “film viewing is a profoundly important site of learning in which extradiegetic worlds are refracted back to viewers through the medium” () and links this with juridical examples to show the potentially deadly consequences of these monosexist reading strategies of bisexuality.

Final thoughts

International collaboration is an important theme in discussions on bisexuality, bisexual activism, and bisexual research. Although a number of Spain-based researchers have shown interest in organizing a similar conference during WorldPride 2017 in Madrid, no researchers or activists have took up the glove yet to organize a second European Bisexual Research Conference and/or the fourth edition of the European Bisexual Conference. I believe that events such as EuroBiReCon provide opportunities to build stronger (informal) networks between researchers and activists and to provide a safe space—a space for bisexual people to feel at home (Bowes-Catton, Barker & Richards, 2011) – for exchanging research ideas, research proposals, and research output. Especially knowing that a number of bisexual researchers are not having a tenured position, work independently as bisexuality research is rather absent in their national contexts, or because they are not embedded in existing international research networks on bisexuality, conferences are needed to indeed take care of one another and empower fellow researchers.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express his gratitude to the editor-in-chief Paz Galupo for her support and patience throughout the whole editorial process. The author also want to thank all contributors to this special issue for their trust, patience, and flexibility.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emiel Maliepaard

Author Biography

Emiel Maliepaard is PhD candidate at the Department of Human Geography, Radboud University. His main interests are gender, sexuality, and social ontologies. He organized the First European Bisexual Research Conference (with Caroline Walters), wrote Dutch guidelines on bi-inclusivity in (LGBT) organizations, health care services, and (government) policies, and conducts research on the spatialities of bisexuality and bisexual individuals.

Notes

1. I would like to thank a number of people for their support. Firstly, I would like to thank Caroline Walters for co-organizing EuroBiReCon. Her experiences with organizing other events were valuable for making this conference run smoothly. Secondly, Robby (or Robert) Davidson from the University of Amsterdam for providing us with the opportunity to organize this conference at the University of Amsterdam. His generosity helped us to keep the conference low budget and more accessible for early career and nonaffiliated researchers as well as bisexual activists. Thirdly, I am extremely grateful to the organizing committee (see www.eurobicon.org) and all the wonderful EuroBiCon volunteers for their amazing work—at the University of Amsterdam and the community center – to make this conference happen, in particular Erwin Heyl, Elysa van der Heide, Floris van Zandbergen, Vera Weetzel, Barbara Oud, Tijmetje Dieleman, Hilde Vossen, Marieke de Reus, and Judith Haan.