It does not appear that anything else was ever published under this name. This essay is quite interesting to me, fills in some of the background behind what I've heard about hostility towards bisexual women from lesbian separatist groups.
I'm also very aware that the world was vastly different thirty years ago. This essay also interests me because of the many unspoken assumptions... that a bisexual woman would actually have a male lover at the same time she has a female lover, and just one lover of each gender. There appear to have been some issues between the male and female lovers and how energy was divided... given the environment, I can imagine that the males were quite often major putzes, etc. and that the bi women could have been quite conflicted about appropriate gender roles, their partner's behavior and sexism, etc. - just like straight women of the time... just like many women today, and that could have placed quite a strain on their relationship with their female lover.
On the other hand, so many of the questions and statements made about bisexual women seem to be completely theoretical and not grounded in any actual experience or discussion with bi women... it is almost like an ideological filter was put on the concept, and the reality of these women's experience was completely ignored.
The previous essay on the normative status of heterosexuality is much more balanced, I think... I'll type it up and send it out later.
I love digging up old books like this. They give you a really vivid snapshot of the way people were thinking at that time, uncolored by later retrospective analysis. Amazingly, there are five used copies of this book available on Amazon.com. I checked this one out from the Santa Cruz Diversity Center Library, which is a marvelous resource for queer reading. I encourage you to buy a copy... this book doesn't appear to have gotten much exposure academically, a search through Google brings up only a handful of references.
I think that, at least these two essays deserve more exposure - both for their historical perspective, and for what relevance they have for our experience today... so I apologize for the violation of copyright implicit in typing up the full text of essays published 27 years ago and inaccessible in any other format.
-Love and Blessings, Thomas Leavitt
Just as the existence of lesbians is not a new "phenomenon," so too the existence of female bisexuals (women who relate sexually to both women and men) is not new. Many women have had lesbian relationships when young and then "reformed" themselves into heterosexuals, usually by getting married. These women obviously did not choose freely to be bisexuals. They either recognized their powerlessness without men, or bought the lie that they were "sick" and tried to "cure" themselves. Other women who were upper class, eccentric artists, actresses, etc. have had affairs with both women and men. Their bisexuality was often an indulgence granted by their men, or once again they used the men as a cover to gain social approval or as a means to more power and financial security.
Today some feminists are "choosing" bisexuality and see this as a revolutionary act. I would like to analyze some of the ways this choice affects the personal lives of these women, the feminist movement, and male supremacy.
First, what does bisexuality mean as a personal choice for a woman? I do not intend to discuss all the nuances of the different stages women go through in order to recognize and define their own sexuality, i.e., the period when a woman is coming out. I do *not* question the merits of that process. But I do question why a woman eventually "chooses" to remain suspended in all the confusions and conflicts bisexual relations can create. One of these conflicts is the question of she uses the strengths that she gains from her woman lover. The woman often feels that her energies were used to regenerate the bisexual woman until she was able to deal with men again. Because of this and other conflicts, both women involved often feel that energies were dissipated completely.
Whether the bisexual woman loses energy from these conflicts or not, how does she become woman-identified? The relationships she still maintains with men do affect how she defines herself and judges her own self-worth. What the men demand and expect of her, how they react to her, what needs of theirs she meets or doesn't meet, their views of the world, etc., all influence how she views herself. Whether the influence is brutal or subtle, she is exposing herself to male sexism on all those levels. Perhaps she takes that risk because she believes men need to deal with their sexism. But why play that same old nurturing role women have always played for men? Why does she still define part of herself in terms of male needs. Though she has a woman lover, she is avoiding the risk of setting herself completely apart from male needs and dependence on men. She is losing the chance to build a new self around her own and other women's needs. To reclaim our bodies and ourselves is the most basic and necessary step to building a feminist revolution. Without a strong base in ourselves, our efforts to work together will be crippled.
Secondly, how does a female bisexual affect male supremacy? Because men still have their needs met by her, she supports rather than threatens male power. In resturn she receives most of the heterosexual privileges of a straight woman. She has access to whatever financial benefits and connections to power her man does. Even if his economic security is minimal, she still gains the social security that male approval gives you in this society. Her identity is mcuh less likely to be questioned, and she therefore escapes both the insecruity of being manless in a man's world and the prejudice lesbians often face in obtaining and keeping jobs and housing.
The creation of a tolerant attitude toward bisexuality would actually be very advantageous for men. It would increase their sexual freedom without shaking their hold on power. It could easily become a double standard, in the same way that heterosexual promiscuity reesults in less punishment for men than it does for woman. Just as long as men are the priority of women, men could allow women to have an occasioinal affair with a woman. In the privileged classes, it would be a reward just like a new dishwasher, house, maid, etc.
If a bisexual woman is only asking men to grant her some sexual freedoms, then she clearly does not have the same goals as feminists who intend to seize that power from men. If she does recognize feminism as a struggle for power, problems still arise. How does her feminism justify a diversion of primary energies to men? Because of the privileges she gains from men, and because she has not made a clear choice and commitment for woman she invites the mistrust of feminists who have done so. What are her priorities? It is difficult and often debilitating to work with women whose commitments are not clear, and who cling to privileges without recognizing the power they gain from them.
Beyond the questions of woman-identity and the need for a high level of trust in small group situations, there is the question of ideology. If a bisexual woman does not see supremacy, how will she go on to analyze male power in deeper and broader ways, especially heterosexuality as an instution that furthers male power. Does she see the need for an ideology? Will she participate in strategies which aim to destroy men's hold on power and therefore will also hurt the privileges she has gained from men?
Having looked at bisexuality within the context of the feminist struggle in a male supremacist society, let me end with this statement. As lesbian/feminists we affirm the bisexuality of human nature. This is one reason we refuse to beg for reforms as a minority group. We are not a minority. Lesbians represent that part of every woman that male supremacy has destroyed or suppressed. One goal of our revolution is to have a society where no particular expression of sexuality is enforced. BUT (italicized emphasis) the revolution has not happened yet. This is not utopia. Women who practice bisexuality today are simply leading highly privileged lives that do not challenge male power and that, in fact, undermine the feminist struggle. We are not trying to enforce lesbianism. We are asking women to look at how their lives affect male power and to make choices accordingly.
--The Furies (newspaper published in early 70's), March-April, 1973