Towards Bi-Inclusive Policies: Suggestions Based on Research on Dutch Same-Sex Attracted Young People

Abstract

Dutch national LGBT policies are not bi-inclusive and this study provides suggestions for improvement, based on empirical research. Attention for bisexuality in policy appears simply to pay lip service and to endorse the construction of sexual orientation as a hetero/homo binary. The outcomes of our survey (n = 1449) and in-depth interviews (n = 38) of Dutch same-sex attracted young people suggest that special attention for bisexual people is warranted. Compared to exclusively same-sex attracted participants, the equally both-sex attracted participants scored worse on openness about their sexual attraction, visibility discomfort, perceived acceptance, and suicide attempts. Unique issues for bisexual-identified young people were identified as follows: marginalization of bisexuality; difficulty expressing bisexuality, particularly in relationships; and a lack of bisexual or bi-inclusive communities. These issues were all related to the hetero/homo binary and mononormativity. Suggested implications for more biinclusive policies focus on awareness of marginalization and invisibility of bisexuality, biphobia, community and capacity building, and comprehensive sexuality and gender education. Furthermore, rather than policies focusing on sameness, a comprehensive diversity perspective on sexuality and gender offers more space for bisexuality. This may be particularly relevant for young people who are exploring their sexuality and developing a sense of their sexual self.

Full text

Towards Bi-Inclusive Policies: Suggestions Based on Research
on Dutch Same-Sex Attracted Young People
Jantine van Lisdonk
1,2
&Saskia Keuzenkamp
2
#The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Dutch national LGBT policies are not bi-inclusive
and this study provides suggestions for improvement, based
on empirical research. Attention for bisexuality in policy ap-
pears simply to pay lip service and to endorse the construction
of sexual orientation as a hetero/homo binary. The outcomes
of our survey (n= 1449) and in-depth interviews (n=38) of
Dutch same-sex attracted young people suggest that special
attention for bisexual people is warranted. Compared to ex-
clusively same-sex attracted participants, the equally both-sex
attracted participants scored worse on openness about their
sexual attraction, visibility discomfort, perceived acceptance,
and suicide attempts. Unique issues for bisexual-identified
young people were identified as follows: marginalization of
bisexuality; difficulty expressing bisexuality, particularly in
relationships; and a lack of bisexual or bi-inclusive communi-
ties. These issues were all related to the hetero/homo binary
and mononormativity. Suggested implications for more bi-
inclusive policies focus on awareness of marginalization and
invisibility of bisexuality, biphobia, community and capacity
building, and comprehensive sexuality and gender education.
Furthermore, rather than policies focusing on sameness, a
comprehensive diversity perspective on sexuality and gender
offers more space for bisexuality. This may be particularly
relevant for young people who are exploring their sexuality
and developing a sense of their sexual self.
Keywords Bisexuality .Same-sex sexuality .Sexual
orientation .LGBT policy .LGBT .You th .Equality .
Diversity .Sexual diversity .Biphobia .Mononormativity .
Netherlands
The Netherlands has a reputation for being one of Europe’s
most tolerant countries as regards to homosexuality
(Keuzenkamp and Kuyper 2013). However, heterosexuality
remains the norm and victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender people (LGBT) is not uncommon
(Keuzenkamp 2010; Keuzenkamp et al. 2012).
Consequently, Dutch national policies continue to focus on
increasing the legal equality and social acceptance of LGBT
people in society (Maliepaard 2015a). A closer look at these
policies reveals that non-heterosexuality is still predominantly
conceptualized as homosexuality and is not bi-inclusive.
This study draws attention to the marginalization and in-
visibility of bisexuality in Dutch society, policy, and research.
Marginalization of bisexuality occurs when people claim to be
speaking about LGB people, while failing to address bisexu-
ality or engage with specific issues that are relevant for bisex-
ual people (Barker et al. 2012a). Bisexual people often remain
invisible in society because people are assumed to be hetero-
sexual or homosexual, based on the gender of their current
partner (Barker et al. 2012a). These marginalization processes
often operate unintentionally in a Btaken-for-granted world^
and socially exclude people who are not part of the
(hetero)normative world (Kitzinger 2005,p.478;Robinson
2012). Hence, marginalization is difficult to expose and chal-
lenge (Kitzinger 2005), yet is perpetuated when bisexual peo-
ple and their problems remain silenced, unrepresented, and
un-prioritized (Barker et al. 2012a).
Due to the marginalization and invisibility of bisexuality in
Dutch society, specific issues bisexual people may face remain
*Jantine van Lisdonk
j.vanlisdonk@rutgers.nl
1
Centre of Expertise on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,
Rutgers, Utrecht, Netherlands
2
Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, Netherlands
DOI 10.1007/s13178-016-0241-1
Published online: 18 July 2016
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

unnoticed or underreported. By presenting mixed methods
empirical research findings on Dutch same-sex attracted
(SSA) young people (ranging from exclusively same-sex
attracted to equally both-sex attracted), we aim to determine
which specific attention to bisexuality in policies is relevant
and necessary. The empirical study focuses on a three-layered
question: Whether there are differences in experiences be-
tween sexual attraction subgroups; whether SSA young peo-
ple experience a lack of space for a bisexual identity and
bisexual expressions; and which unique issues for bisexual-
identified people can be identified. Based on these findings,
we then put forward a number of suggestions for more bi-
inclusive policies.
Bisexuality in Research: Definition, Measuring,
and Attention
Since the seminal work of Alfred Kinsey (Kinsey et al. 1948)
andFritzKlein(Kleinetal.1985), there is an academic con-
sensus that sexual orientation consists of several dimensions,
such as sexual attraction, self-identification, and sexual behav-
ior, and that individual experiences may be different between
dimensions and can change over time (Hegna and Rossow
2007; McDermott 2010; Saewyc et al. 2009; Savin-Wiliams
2005). Survey studies which have been inspired by these works
commonly conceptualize sexual attraction as a continuum and
provide several response options ranging from exclusively
attracted to men to exclusively attracted to women. In these
models, gender is commonly conceptualized as binary.
We recognize that gender is more complex and that gender
identities are not limited to man and woman. Some people
perceive gender as a continuum (e.g., mostly woman, partly
man/partly woman), question or play with the concept of gen-
der (e.g., genderqueer, ze). Theoretically, we agree with a
group of leading bisexuality researchers in the UK, in which
bisexuality is understood as Bhaving attraction to more than
one gender^(Barker et al. 2012a, p. 3). This means that people
can see themselves as attracted to both men and women, as
attracted mostly but not exclusively to one gender, as attracted
to people regardless of gender, or as people who dispute the
notion that there are only two genders to which they can be
attracted (Barker et al. 2012a,p.3).
While the theoretical conceptualization of sexual orienta-
tion as multidimensional and sexual attraction as a continuum
are widely acknowledged among scholars, reporting on sexual
orientation as a multidimensional concept is challenging in
large-scale survey research among general populations.
Researchers generally measure or report one dimension of
sexual orientation. Gender is usually assessed as a binary.
There are inspiring examples of assessing gender in bisexual,
open-minded, and transgender communities, providing op-
tions such as Bmostly/only female^(Barker et al. 2008),
Bpartly male, partly female,^Bnot male and not female,^BI
don’t know (yet),^or Bother (specify)^(Doorduin 2015).
Nevertheless, in general populations, assessing gender as
non-binary is often still considered radical or raises questions
among participants. At least, this is the case in the
Netherlands.
In research, attention for bisexuality is still relatively scarce
compared to homosexuality (Barker et al. 2012a,b;
Oosterhuis and Lipperts 2013; Rust 2002). For example, re-
searchers still amalgamate bisexual people with homosexual
people since they do not recognize the relevance of
distinguishing between these subgroups (Barker et al.
2012b; Oosterhuis and Lipperts 2013). On a positive note,
more researchers have started to compare experiences of bi-
sexual versus gay and lesbian people (Rust 2002).
This growing body of research has demonstrated that
distinguishing between sexual orientation subgroups is rele-
vant (Diamond 2008;Hegna and Rossow 2007;Oosterhuis
and Lipperts 2013;Rust2002; Savin-Williams 2005).
Bisexual people appear to be in a more difficult situation or
have more negative experiences in several ways. Compared to
gay- and lesbian-identified people, bisexual-identified people
are less open about their sexual orientation to people in their
social network, report more internalized homonegativity, re-
port more mental health problems, score higher on suicidality,
and show lower LGB community identification and commu-
nity involvement (Barker et al. 2012a; Cox et al. 2010,2011;
D’Augelli et al. 2005; Herek et al. 2010; Kertzner et al. 2009).
While the picture for Dutch both-sex attracted and bisexual-
identified young people is incomplete and inconsistent
(Franssens 2010;Kuyper2011,2015a), Dutch studies of
both-sex attracted adults show fairly similar outcomes
(Kuyper 2011,2013; Van Lisdonk and Kooiman 2012).
This literature demonstrates differences between sexual ori-
entation subgroups, yet these studies generally do not take into
account other factors which may explain these differences. It is
therefore not clear whether differences remain after controlling
for other relevant factors. For example, compared to their gay-
and lesbian-identified counterparts, individuals who identify as
bisexual are likely to be younger, are more often women, are
less open to other people about their sexual orientation, consid-
er their sexual orientation less important in their lives, and are
less likely to have had a relationship with a same-sex partner
(Cox et al. 2010,2011;D’Augelli et al. 2005; Herek 2009;
Kertzner et al. 2009;Rust2002). Perhaps differences between
bisexual and homosexual people on mental health or openness
about their sexual orientation are strongly related to bisexual
people being younger, being more often women, and not hav-
ing had a same-sex partner. We aim to contribute to this body of
knowledge and provide more robust comparisons by investi-
gating whether any differences between sexual attraction sub-
groups remain present when other potentially relevant factors
are taken into account.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 207
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

A specific challenge which bisexual people may face is
biphobia. This includes the denial of bisexuality as a sexual
orientation, the invisibility and marginalization of bisexuality,
and stereotypes such as being sexually promiscuous, a threat
to families and relationships, and bisexual people taking the
Beasy option^(Barker et al. 2012a,b;Diamond2008; Eliason
1997; McLean 2008; Rust 2002). Biphobia can be experi-
enced from heterosexual as well as from gay and lesbian peo-
ple (Barker et al. 2012a;Rust2002).
While Herek observes that bisexual people report less dis-
crimination compared to gay and lesbian people, he dismisses
the interpretation that bisexuality is less stigmatized than ho-
mosexuality (Herek 2009). Rather, he concludes that the
greater invisibility of bisexual people reduces the vulnerability
to discrimination experiences (Herek 2009), which has also
been reported in Dutch studies (Kuyper 2011; Van Lisdonk
and Kooiman 2012). Several population-based studies have
demonstrated that heterosexual people’s general attitudes to-
wards bisexual people were less positive than towards gay and
lesbian people (Eliason 1997; Steffens and Wagner 2004). So
far, Dutch studies have only revealed small (Keuzenkamp and
Kuyper 2013;Kuyper2015b) or negligible differences in gen-
eral attitudes (Van Lisdonk and Kooiman 2012). To our
knowledge, biphobia among heterosexual, gay, and lesbian
people has never been studied in depth in Dutch society.
Nevertheless, what stands out is the invisibility of bisexual
people in Dutch society, given that the prevalence of both-
sex attraction and bisexual self-identification seems to be as
common as an exclusively same-sex attraction or gay/lesbian
self-identification in Dutch society (Keuzenkamp et al. 2012;
Kuyper 2006,2013).
Lack of Representation of Bisexuality in Dutch
National Policies
A brief review of the history of Dutch national policies shows
that small steps have been taken towards addressing bisexual-
ity, but that these have not been followed by a more bi-
inclusive framing of same-sex sexuality. Since the first nation-
al policy plan in 1986, policies relating to the position of non-
heterosexual citizens have focused on emancipation, legal
equality, social acceptance, combating discrimination, and
Banti-gay^violence (e.g., TK 1985/1986, 2007/2008, 2010/
2011, 2012/2013). Until 2010, these policy plans targeted
Bhomosexuals^and referred to Bhomo emancipation^or
Blesbian and homo emancipation^.
1
Since 2010, national
emancipation policy documents have started to adopt the term
BLGBT,^and it is presently politically correct in Dutch policy
documents and formal language to refer to LGBT people and
LGBT emancipation. However, explicit visibility of or atten-
tion for bisexuality is absent, thus reducing the use of the term
to mere lip service, in which bisexuality is easily obscured
under the umbrella of LGBT.
2
Forexample,inrecentyears,
Bfor the sake of readability^LGBT people were addressed as
Bhomosexuals^, occasionally alternated with Bhomosexual
and lesbian people^(TK 2010/2011). Main objectives were
formulated as Bequal rights for heterosexuals and
homosexuals^(TK 2012/2013, p. 1, translation by authors)
and Bto improve the safety of LGBT people and to improve
the social acceptance of homosexuality^(TK 2012/2013,
appendix, p. 6).
Although current national policies do not devote specific
attention to bisexuality, this is not to say that governmental
attention for bisexuality is non-existent. The current minister
has announced plans to explore whether national policies are
sufficiently bi-inclusive. In addition, for several years, the
government has provided financial support to organizations
specifically targeting bisexual people. However, bisexuality
remains largely invisible in policy plans and progress reports.
There has been no fundamental shift towards bi-inclusive pol-
icies, and attention for bisexuality remains sporadic and
superficial.
We agree with Maliepaard’s conclusion, based on an in-
depth analysis of national emancipation policy documents,
that bisexuality is not represented in these policies, because
LGBT people are classed as a homogenous sexual minority
group, with bisexual people being equated with homosexual
people (Maliepaard 2015a). We argue that the absence of com-
prehensiveattention for bisexuality is related to the underlying
equality and rights-based approach of Dutch national LGBT
policies. Robinson (2012) noted that in Dutch society, a sexual
minority approach is strategically focused on sameness and
normalization in striving for legal rights and social tolerance.
Richardson and Monro (2012) described a similar approach in
other Western countries. In such an approach, LGBT people
need to be represented as a group of people who are
Bordinary^and who are similar to each other. Sexual minori-
ties are presented as a discrete group in the same way as ethnic
minority groups, and sexual orientation is considered to be
fixed, stable, and immutable (Herek 2000; Richardson and
Monro 2012). A fixed sexual orientation, homogenization,
and ordinariness of LGBT people are projected in these poli-
cies, but this may not necessary reflect how bisexual people
consider themselves or how lesbian and gay people see bisex-
ual people. In essence, such an approach often perpetuates the
societal conceptualizations of sexual orientation as a hetero/
1
The only exception was the English version of the 2007/2008 policy
document, titled BLGBT policy plan,^which resonated with upcoming
international terminology trends.
2
Explicit visibility of or attention for transgender people is also limited.
However, there is an increasingly visible transgender movement and a
growing awareness among LGBT activists and organizations that trans-
gender people have unique problems and issues which require attention.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
208
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

homo binary, which makes invisible possible specific needs or
problems of bisexual people and the need for policy that ex-
plicitly addresses bisexual specific issues.
Present Study
This study focuses on the experiences of SSA young peo-
ple as a basis for suggestions for more bi-inclusive poli-
cies. Sexuality is an important theme in young people’s
lives in their transition to adulthood, and they may be
particularly aware of social messages concerning sexuali-
ty and sexual orientation. Based on mixed methods data
on Dutch SSA young people, we aimed to (a) investigate
whether there are any differences in experiences between
exclusively same-sex attracted, mostly same-sex attracted,
and equally both-sex attracted subgroups; (b) assess
whether they experience a lack of space for a bisexual
identity and bisexual expressions; and (c) identify unique
issues for bisexual-identified people. Informed by this em-
pirical data, we discuss the outcomes of the three central
questions in dialogue with each other and offer sugges-
tions for more bi-inclusive policies.
The rationale for a mixed methods design was the ability to
combine results based on quantitative and qualitative data
strands to provide a more comprehensive picture. Each meth-
od was used to answer specific questions which led to com-
plementary knowledge and a better overall insight (Creswell
and Plano Clark 2011). Using quantitative data, we investigat-
ed whether there were any differences between sexual attrac-
tion subgroups in terms of openness about their sexual attrac-
tion, perceived acceptance, and perceived experiences of vic-
timization, suicidality, visibility discomfort, and self-esteem.
This was followed by additional multivariate analyses to de-
termine whether differences remained significant after con-
trolling for potentially relevant factors (age, gender, impor-
tance of their sexual attraction in their lives, degree of open-
ness about their sexual attraction, and having relationship ex-
perience with a same-sex partner).
In this quantitative sample, we used sexual attraction as an
indicator for participants’sexual orientation. Here, we follow
other scholars who have suggested employing this indicator in
survey studies with a broad scope (Kuyper 2015a; McDermott
2010). Studies have shown that other sexual orientation di-
mensions may unintentionally exclude young people, since
self-identification may be a very delicate issue for young peo-
ple and young SSA individuals may not yet have had any
same-sex sexual or relationship experiences (Kuyper 2015a;
McDermott 2010). In this quantitative data analysis, we dis-
tinguished between equally both-sex attracted, mostly same-
sex attracted, and exclusively same-sex attracted subgroups.
The motivation to distinguish between three sexual attraction
subgroups underscores our view that sexual attraction should
be conceptualized as a continuum.
We used qualitative data to explore the views and experi-
ences of young bisexual-identified and non-bisexual-
identified SSA people on sexual orientation in general and
bisexuality in particular. The combination of interviewing
both bisexual-identified and non-bisexual-identified SSA peo-
ple was conducive to revealing views and experiences
concerning sexual orientation and related biphobia and mar-
ginalization of bisexuality. We also assessed whether the space
for a bisexual identity was limited and whether bisexual-
identified people felt they could openly express their bisexu-
ality. Which bisexual expressions were tolerated and which
were rejected? We also identified whether bisexual-identified
young people faced unique problems which were not relevant,
or less relevant, for the other SSA young people.
Method
Design, Sampling, and Data Collection
Mixed Methods Design
We used a sequential mixed methods design (Creswell and
Plano Clark 2011). A quantitative Web-based survey was
followed by in-depth interviews and samples were nested for
the quantitative and qualitative data components. The quanti-
tative and qualitative data were given equal emphasis in this
study.
Sample and Recruitment
The study focused on SSA people aged between 16 and
26 years living in the Netherlands. The quantitative data col-
lection was based on convenience sampling. To minimize the
expected impact of a convenience sample on representative-
ness and selective non-response, the aim was to reach as many
people as possible to fill in the survey. Multiple recruitment
techniques were therefore used and special attention was paid
to recruiting groups that are known to be difficult to recruit
through traditional LGB channels, such as migrant and reli-
gious SSA people and non-LGB-identifying young people. It
was important to include non-LGB channels, since research
has shown that bisexual people do not always identify with or
participate in LGB communities (Barker et al. 2012a).
Participants were recruited through websites, newsletters,
mailing lists, and social media targeting LGB people, partic-
ularly young LGB people, as well as young people in general.
We included a few social media channels focusing on bisexual
young women. To our knowledge, in 2009, there were no
similar channels targeting bisexual young men. In addition,
a promotional team recruited attendees at LGB-focused
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 209
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

parties and events in a number of geographical regions in the
Netherlands. All recruitment materials targeted same-sex
attracted young people and labels such as homosexual, lesbi-
an, gay, and bisexual were avoided.
Quantitative data collection was carried out using a self-
administered online survey, which was placed online from
May to July 2009 on a special website. A broad range of topics
were addressed, including same-sex sexuality experiences,
degree of openness about one’s sexual attraction, visibility
discomfort, perceived acceptance and victimization, psycho-
social well-being, and suicidality. After the quantitative data
collection, participants were selected for in-depth interviews.
We sought to achieve maximum variation in the qualitative
sample in terms of gender, age, place of residence (rural or
urban; geographically spread throughout the country), and
sexual self-identification. An additional inclusion criterion
was that participants were open about their sexual attraction
to at least one person. Qualitative data collection took place
between October 2010 and March 2011.
Instruments for Quantitative Data Collection
Attraction
Participants were asked to indicate to whom they felt attracted
on a 5-point scale (0 = Exclusively same sex, 1 = Mostly same
sex, 2 = Attracted to men and women equally, 3 = Mostly
other sex, 4 = Exclusively other sex). Two further options
were also included (5 = I don’t know, 6 = Neither). We dis-
tinguished between three subgroups: exclusively same-sex
attracted, mostly same-sex attracted, and equally both-sex
attracted. Previous data analyses have shown that the mostly
same-sex attracted group did not consistently resemble one of
the other subgroups (Van Lisdonk and Van Bergen 2010)and
we chose to provide more detailed information rather than
clustering subgroups together. The participants who answered
3, 4, 5, or 6 were excluded from the analyses. The BMostly
other sex attracted^participants were excluded since studies
focused on this subgroup show that this is a distinct subgroup
(e.g., Savin-Williams and Vrangalova 2013), which prompted
us not to combine them with the equally both-sex attracted
group, while the subgroup was too small to report on
separately.
Importance of Sexual Attraction
To assess whether participants’sexual attraction was impor-
tant in their lives, we posed the statement: BThe fact that I feel
attracted to men/women is important for who I am.^They
were asked to rate their answer on a 5-point scale (0 =
Completely agree, 4 = Completely disagree).
Degree of Openness
The degree of participants’openness about their sexual attrac-
tion to others was measured using items that were mainly
adopted from previous Dutch studies on young LGB people
(De Graaf et al. 2005; Franssens 2010). Participants were
asked whether people in their social network knew about their
sexual attraction, measured separately with regard to their
mother, father, extended family members, straight friends,
and fellow pupils. BDon’t know^responses were coded as
system-missing values. For the multivariate analyses, an index
for the overall degree of openness was calculated for inclusion
as a control variable, using the mean score for the categories
that were applicable to them (e.g., not all participants had a
mother). The index for the overall degree of openness ranged
from 0 (Not out at all) to 2 (Out to all people). For this sample,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79.
Same-Sex Partner
Participants were asked whether they had experience of hav-
ing a relationship with a same-sex partner lasting at least
1month.
Perceived Acceptance
Participants were asked whether their mother, father, extended
family, straights friends, and fellow students had accepted that
they felt same-sex attracted or both same-sex and other-sex
attracted. For mother and father, responses ranged from 0 (Not
accepted) to 4 (Completely accepted). In the other contexts,
the response options were 0 (Yes), 1 (By some), 2 (No), and 3
(Don’t know). To compare perceived complete acceptance to
lower levels of perceived acceptance, scores were recoded to 0
(Perceived limited acceptance) and 1 (Perceived complete ac-
ceptance). BDon’tknow^responses were coded as system-
missing values. In the analyses, participants were only includ-
ed if they were open to some or all people in the specific
context.
Perceived Experiences of Victimization
Measurement of participants’experiences of victimization
due to their sexual attraction was based on self-report; hence,
we refer to perceived experiences of victimization. The degree
of perceived experiences of victimization in the preceding
12 months was measured for the contexts of parents, extended
family, straight friends, fellow students, and strangers (formu-
lated as BPeople in the neighborhood/ unknown people^)with
1-item questions, for example: BHave you been victimized at
your school during the past 12 months due to your same-sex
attraction?^For each context, frequency scores were dichoto-
mized into 0 (No) and 1 (Yes).
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
210
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Suicidality
Lifetime suicidal ideation and suicide attempts were each
measured with a single item on having suicidal thoughts and
having attempted to end one’s own life. Frequency scores
were dichotomized into 0 (No) and 1 (Yes).
Visibility Discomfort
Visibility discomfort refers to whether people are comfortably
open about their sexual attraction to other people and in the
public space. The degree of visibility discomfort was mea-
sured using an adapted version of the Public Identification as
a Lesbian subscale. The original subscale consisted of 16
items and was part of the Lesbian Internalized Homophobia
Scale (Szymanski and Chung 2001). In the adapted version,
eight items were selected (items 2, 15, 19, 24, 30, 34, 41, 47)
which we considered to be relevant for young people and
which were appropriate for participants who did not identify
themselves as gay or lesbian. Examples of this adapted sub-
scale are: BWhen talking about my relationship to a straight
person, I often use neutral pronouns so the sex of the person I
am in a relationship with is vague,^and BIf my peers knew
that I feel attracted to men/women, I fear that a lot of them
would not want to be friends with me.^For items that referred
to having a same-sex partner, participants were asked to
imagine having a same-sex partner. A 5-point Likert-type
response scale was used, ranging from BStrongly agree^
to BStrongly disagree.^For the multivariate analysis, the
overall mean score was calculated. Higher scores indicat-
ed more discomfort with being open about their sexual
attraction to others and in the public space. For this sam-
ple, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87.
Self-Esteem
This was assessed using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(1979). The ten original items were recoded where necessary,
and the overall mean score was calculated. Higher scores in-
dicated higher self-esteem. For this sample, Cronbach’s al-
pha = 0.92.
Instruments for Qualitative Data Collection
The first author conducted all the in-depth interviews at the
locations preferred by the participants, on the condition that
interference by other people would be kept to a minimum
owing to the potentially sensitive topics to be addressed in
the interview. The interviews lasted for 135 min on average;
none was not shorter than 50 min. The interviews were semi-
structured. The topic list included topics such as past and
current sexual orientation experiences (sexual attraction, sex-
ual behavior, relationships, self-identification); coming out;
experiences of stigmatization due to their sexual attraction;
and relations with heterosexual and LGB peers. Most ques-
tions had an open character, so as to invite participants to
provide rich information and to leave space for them to men-
tion things that were important to them. In addition, partici-
pants were presented with several statements relating to same-
sex sexuality in order to prompt them to speak about their
views on same-sex sexuality. One of the statements was:
BBisexuality is a stable sexual orientation.^
Procedures
The study was approved by the internal review committee of
the Netherlands Institute for Social Research and was regis-
tered with the Dutch Data Protection Authority. Prospective
participants were given information about the study and its
aims and content on the survey website as well as by e-mail
prior to participating in the in-depth interviews. Participants
were only eligible for inclusion in the qualitative sample if
they had confirmed in the survey that they were willing to
participate in follow-up studies and to be contacted by the
researchers for that purpose. If necessary, the information
about the study and the consent form were explained and
discussed at the beginning of the interview. All participants
provided written informed consent. Participants’anonymity
was guaranteed and participants were given pseudonyms.
Data Analysis
Quantitative and qualitative data strands were analyzed sepa-
rately, combining the findings to provide a comprehensive
picture. In the quantitative data analyses, we investigated
whether differences between exclusively same-sex attracted,
mostly same-sex attracted, and equally both-sex attracted par-
ticipants were present for a range of experiences: degree of
openness, perceived acceptance, perceived experiences of vic-
timization, suicidality, visibility discomfort, and self-esteem.
Bearing in mind that differences between sexual attraction
subgroups in sociodemographics and the visibility of their
sexual orientation may affect outcomes, we conducted multi-
variate analyses to determine whether any differences in out-
come variables remained present after controlling for other
variables. Prior to the analyses of the outcome variables, we
therefore tested differences between sexual attraction sub-
groups for potentially relevant variables which we had identi-
fied in previous studies: age, gender, importance of their sex-
ual attraction in their lives, degree of openness about their
sexual attraction, and having relational experience with a
same-sex partner (see literature study in the previous section).
Chi-square tests were used for categorical variables and one-
way ANOVA for continuous variables. When tests were sig-
nificant, variables were included as control variables in the
multivariate analyses. Depending on the level of measurement
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 211
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

of the outcome variables, we conducted logistic regression
analyses or linear regression. To distinguish between sexual
attraction subgroups, we used dummies for the mostly same-
sex attracted subgroup and the equally both-sex attracted sub-
group, with exclusively same-sex attracted subgroup as the
reference group. Quantitative data analyses were carried out
using SPSS version 17.0.
In the qualitative data analysis, major themes related to
bisexuality and unique themes for bisexual-identified young
people were identified, independently from the quantitative
data analyses. All interviews were transcribed verbatim.
Meta-themes for further analysis were identified based on
the major topics that emerged from an initial analysis of the
first 20 transcripts, as well as the logbook of the qualitative
data collection phase and the researchers’theoretical interests.
These meta-themes were used to develop a first version of a
codebook. Subsequently, all transcripts were coded and ana-
lyzed in Atlas.ti (version 6.2), using the a priori codebook
which was developed further using inductive coding. The
writing of memos during the coding process was conducive
to generating and promoting transparency in the interpretation
of findings (Friese 2012). This process of fine-coding was
followed by axial coding in which codes were combined to
generate subthemes. Participants were categorized as
bisexual-identified or non-bisexual-identified based on their
self-identification. The label Bbisexual^is often abbreviated
in Dutch to Bbi.^In this article, to aid legibility, we consistent-
ly refer to bisexual, except in participants’quotes.
Participants
The quantitative study sample comprised 1449 Dutch SSA
young people aged between 16 and 25 years. The mean age
was 20.12 (SD = 2.79). The sample consisted of 839 exclu-
sively same-sex attracted, 474 mostly same-sex attracted, and
136 equally both-sex attracted participants. There were more
women (65 %) than men (35 %). Of the women, 12 % were
equally both-sex attracted, 37 % mostly same-sex attracted,
and 51 % exclusively same-sex attracted. Of the men, 4 %
were equally both-sex attracted, 25 % mostly same-sex
attracted, and 71 % exclusively same-sex attracted. Seventy-
six percent of participants were enrolled in education and
71 % reported having a job. A minority of participants iden-
tified themselves as religious (22 %), predominantly
Christian, which is comparable to the general population of
Dutch young people. Sixteen percent of participants had a
migrant background, meaning that at least one of their parents
was born outside the Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands
2012).
The qualitative sample consisted of 19 women and 19 men
aged between 18 and 26 years. Four women and three men
identified as bisexual and felt attracted to women and men. In
addition to these seven participants, two women and two men
reported that they had experienced Babisexualphase^in their
lives. These four did not identify as bisexual. The non-
bisexual-identified participants identified as homo(sexual) or
lesbian, and about half of them primarily or also described
their sexual orientation by saying BI like men/women^.
Some described their sexual orientation as BI have/do not have
a girlfriend/boyfriend.^Identifying as Bgay^was rare and
none identified as Bqueer,^Bstraight,^Bquestioning,^or
Bpansexual.^
In this sample, 21 participants were at school, 19 in work, 2
were unemployed, and 1 was chronically ill. Six participants
had a migrant background, with one or both parents being of
non-Dutch descent. Four of the participants considered them-
selves to be religious.
Results
Quantitative Differences between Sexual Attraction
Subgroups
First, we determined whether potentially relevant variables
were useful to include as control variables by testing for dif-
ferences between sexual attraction subgroups. For the quanti-
tative sample, Table 1presents descriptive information of the
possible control variables (age, gender, importance of sexual
attraction, degree of openness, and having relationship expe-
rience with a same-sex partner) for each sexual attraction sub-
group. Since sexual attraction subgroups differed significantly
on each of these variables, these were all included as control
variables in further analyses.
Tab le 2shows the results for the outcome variables degree
of openness, perceived acceptance, perceived experiences of
victimization, and suicidality. Table 3presents the results for
visibility discomfort and self-esteem. In both tables, the first
columns present descriptive results for each sexual attraction
subgroup. Table 2presents the odds ratios for the mostly
same-sex attracted and equally both-sex attracted subgroups,
based on logistic analyses. Similarly, Table 3shows the un-
standardized beta coefficients, based on linear regression anal-
yses. In all logistic and linear regression analyses, we con-
trolled for age, gender, importance of sexual attraction, degree
of openness, and having relationship experience with a same-
sex partner. Since degree of openness is highly correlated with
the outcome variables openness, perceived acceptance, and
visibility discomfort, we excluded degree of openness as a
control variable in these specific multivariate analyses.
Openness
Compared to exclusively same-sex attracted participants, the
mostly same-sex attracted and equally both-sex attracted par-
ticipants were less open about their sexual orientation to their
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
212
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

mother, father, extended family, straight friends, and fellow
students. There were large differences between sexual attrac-
tion subgroups and between contexts. The percentage of ex-
clusively same-sex attracted participants who were open
ranged between 84 and 95 % in different contexts, while for
equally both-sex attracted participants, this range was between
40 and 77 %. In all contexts, differences between sexual at-
traction subgroups remained significant in logistic regression
analyses (p< 0.001 in all contexts).
Perceived Acceptance
Differences in perceived acceptance varied between contexts.
Mostly same-sex attracted and equally both-sex attracted par-
ticipants reported less perceived acceptance by their mother
and extended family compared to exclusively same-sex
attracted participants. In logistic regression analyses, these
differences remained significant in the context of the mother
(mostly same-sex attracted: odds ratio (OR) = 0.63, p=0.004;
equally both-sex attracted: OR = 0.40, p= 0.003) and extend-
ed family (mostly same-sex attracted: OR = 0.65, p=0.013;
equally both-sex attracted: OR = 0.39, p= 0.002). In other
contexts, the differences were small and were not significant
in logistic regression analyses. In the case of the father and
fellow students, the size of the equally both-sex attracted sub-
group was too small to run analyses, which was related to
lower degrees of openness in these contexts.
Perceived Experiences of Victimization
Perceived experiences of victimization due to the participants’
sexual attraction by their parents, extended family members,
straight friends, or fellow students in the preceding year were
most frequently reported by the mostly same-sex attracted
subgroup. The equally both-sex attracted participants were
least likely to report perceived experiences of victimization.
In logistic regression analyses, the mostly same-sex attracted
subgroup remained more likely to have experienced perceived
victimization by extended family (OR = 1.80, p=0.001)and
straight friends (OR = 1.38, p=0.022).
Suicidality
Around half the participants in all sexual attraction subgroups
reported lifetime suicidal ideation. Differences were negligi-
ble and not significant in the logistic regression analysis.
Suicide attempts were reported more by equally both-sex
attracted participants (21.1 %) than mostly same-sex
attracted (13.4 %) or exclusively same-sex attracted partici-
pants (11.4 %). This difference remained significant in the
logistic regression analysis (OR = 2.20, p=0.006).
Visibility Discomfort
Compared to the exclusively same-sex attracted participants,
the mostly same-sex attracted and equally both-sex attracted
participants reported more discomfort with being open and
visible about their sexual orientation. Since visibility discom-
fort and degree of openness (r=−0.65, p< 0.001) were highly
correlated, the latter variable was not included in the linear
regression analysis. In this analysis, differences between sex-
ual attraction subgroups remained significant (mostly same-
sex attracted: b= 0.24, standard error (SE) = 0.24, p<0.001;
equally both-sex attracted: b= 0.28, SE = 0.07, p≤0.001).
Self-Esteem
Equally both-sex attracted participants reported lower scores
on self-esteem compared to mostly same-sex attracted or ex-
clusively same-sex attracted participants. In a linear regression
analysis, these differences were not significant after control-
ling for other variables, perhaps because of the fairly strong
effects of gender (b=0.22, SE=0.04, p≤0.001) and open-
ness (b= 0.18, SE = 0.04, p≤0.001).
Table 1 Gender, age, and same-sex sexuality experiences compared between sexual attraction subgroups
Exclusively same-sex
attracted (n=839)
Mostly same-sex
attracted (n=474)
Equally both-sex
attracted (n=136)
For χ
2b
df p value
Age (M (SD); range 16–25) 20.33 (2.77) 19.87 (2.79) 19.74 (2.78) 5.53 (2, 1446) 0.004
Gender (n; % women) 57.4 73.4 86.8 64.36 2 <0.001
Importance of sexual attraction
(M (SD); range 0–4)
1.00 (0.96) 1.13 (0.98) 1.28 (0.92) 7.36 (2, 1446) 0.001
Openness
a
(M (SD); range 0–2, low to high) 1.60 (0.51) 1.25 (0.65) 0.94 (0.70) 91.34
c
(2, 339) <0.001
Same-sex partner (n; % yes) 66.2 53.8 43.4 36.46 2 <0.001
a
Due to a technical problem, there were some missing scores on the item about openness to their mother and father. The non-response group did not
differ from the response group in terms of sociodemographics or same-sex sexuality experiences
b
For the variables age, importance of sexual attraction, and openness, differences between sexual attraction subgroups were assessed using one-way
ANOVA. For the variables gender and same-sex partner, χ
2
tests were used to assess differences
c
Since Levene’s test indicated that variances were unequal, the Welch Fratio is reported
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 213
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Unique Issues for Bisexual-Identified Dutch Young People
Based on qualitative data, participants’bisexual experi-
ences and views on bisexuality were explored, as well
as the space for them to identify as bisexual and to ex-
press bisexuality. Several unique issues were identified
related to bisexuality or to views on sexual orientation
which impacted on the lives of bisexual-identified partic-
ipants: (a) marginalization of bisexuality through reifica-
tion of the hetero/homo binary, (b) difficulty expressing
bisexuality, particularly in relationships, and (c) a lack of
bisexual or bi-inclusive communities.
Marginalization through Reification of the Hetero/Homo
Binary
Views on bisexuality by non-bisexual-identified SSA partici-
pants showed that bisexuality as a sexual orientation was
surrounded with controversy, which implicitly reified the
hetero/homo binary and consequently marginalized bisexual-
ity as a sexual orientation. A minority considered bisexuality a
stable and Breal^sexual orientation, similar to homosexuality
and heterosexuality. However, more than half the participants
considered bisexuality not to be a stable sexual orientation
and/or perceived it as a temporary phase. Stereotypes about
Table 2 Results for openness, acceptance, victimization, and suicidality
Percentages
b
Logistic regression analyses
c
Outcome variables Exclusively
same-sex attracted
Mostly
same-sex attracted
Equally
both-sex attracted
Odds ratio on
mostly same-sex
attracted vs exclusively
same-sex attracted
Odds ratio on equally
both-sex attracted
versus exclusively
same-sex attracted
Open to
Mother (yes %, n= 1083) 91.8 76.6 55.6 0.33*** 0.11***
Father (yes %, n= 1056) 84.9 65.4 40.0 0.39*** 0.14***
Extended family (some/all
%, n= 1375)
84.8 65.5 46.6 0.36*** 0.17***
Straight friends (some/all %,
n= 1246)
95.1 86.2 77.2 0.34*** 0.19***
Fellow students (some/all
%, n= 1086)
84.2 71.0 57.9 0.51*** 0.32***
Perceived acceptance by
Mother (completely %,
n=911)
66.9 55.5 44.4 0.63** 0.40**
Father (completely %,
n=795)
a
59.1 53.9 . 0.77 .
Extended family
(all %, n=914)
77.0 69.3 58.5 0.65* 0.39**
Straight friends
(all %, n= 1107)
91.5 89.0 86.2 0.73 0.55
Fellow students
(all %, n=704)
a
76.5 70.6 . 0.69 .
Perceived victimization (yes % in preceding year)
Parents (n= 1449) 19.0 20.9 11.8 1.13 0.57
Extended family
(n= 1449)
11.0 16.9 12.5 1.80** 1.35
Straight friends
(n= 1449)
21.5 27.6 19.9 1.38* 0.90
Fellow students
(n= 1213)
30.1 31.9 17.8 1.30 0.67
Suicidality (yes % lifetime)
Ideation (n= 1308) 56.8 52.8 59.6 0.81 1.03
Attempt (n= 1308) 11.4 13.4 21.1 1.22 2.20**
a
In the equally both-sex attracted subgroup, the number of observations was less than 50. Logistic regression was not performed
b
Not controlled for other variables
c
Controlled for age, gender, importance, openness, and relationship experience with same-sex partner. Degree of openness was not controlled for in
relation to outcome variables on openness and perceived acceptance
*p<0.05;**p< 0.01; ***p<0.001
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
214
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

bisexuality emerged, such as bisexual people not having made
up their minds yet or wanting to have it both ways. Several
non-bisexual-identified participants did not take bisexuality
seriously. According to Paul (man, 18 years): BIf someone
comes out as ‘Iambisexual’, I always say to them: ‘Wel l,
you’ll find out later …you’re just homo’.^
Some participants regarded the label Bbisexual^as a tem-
porary state with which theyare at easeand comfortable, since
it seems less definitive than expressing a homosexual orienta-
tion. According to some participants, coming out as bisexual
keeps the option of heterosexuality open.
For me, when you say straight away that you are lesbian,
that’s a really big step. But being bisexual, I think that’s
something in between, between two worlds. When you
say it like that, with one foot in each camp, it feels okay.
That’s how I felt, anyway. (Xena, woman, 21 years)
However, most people who spoke about bisexuality as a
temporary state were also critical because of its indecisive
character. As a consequence, some participants expected that
bisexual people would ultimately choose between a heterosex-
ual or homosexual orientation. Bisexual-identified partici-
pants also spoke about pressure to Bknow^or Bdecide^about
their sexual orientation, in which case a bisexual status was
not considered a valid option.
By then, the entire student association knew. Many of
the men gave me reactions like: ’Do you know for sure?
Do we still have a chance?’, which was quite annoying
because I didn’t know. (Joanne, woman, 21 years)
Joanne felt mostly same-sex attracted, but found it difficult
to say she was lesbian because she was not completely sure.
The idea of coming out as lesbian and then finding she liked a
man was scary for her. This example shows how sexual ori-
entation is predominantly conceptualized as a binary in which
the flexibility to switch between sexual orientations is mini-
mal. Other participants also felt that they had Bto be certain^
about being heterosexual or homosexual
3
before coming out
to others. Several of them mentioned that they had waited to
disclose their same-sex sexuality to others because they first
wanted to be Bsure.^Apparently, they felt a lack of space to
share or discuss their early sexual orientation awareness, or
else they had doubts or felt that bisexuality was not an option.
Young people who identified as bisexual also expressed how
sexual orientation was conceptualized as a binary, consisting
of a heterosexual and homosexual option. Three out of seven
(Linda, Tamara, Ilan) perceived a homosexual orientation to
be the Bdefault^for same-sex sexuality.
Space Limited to Temporary Bisexuality and Women’sSexual
Behavior
In daily life, bisexual-identified young people have to find
acceptable ways to frame and express their bisexuality.
Some of the bisexual-identified participants embraced their
bisexual orientation, but none of them were open to all their
friends and family. While there was not much space for a
bisexual identity as a Bserious^sexual orientation, there were
two exceptions in which bisexuality was allowed or more
likely to be tolerated: (a) temporary bisexuality and (b) sexual
behavior between women framed as bisexual or bi-curious.
Temporary bisexuality refers to bisexuality as a temporary
phase en route towards a homosexual or heterosexual orienta-
tion. The notion of temporary bisexuality provided young
people with the space to experiment with their sexual
Table 3 Results for visibility discomfort and self-esteem
Mean scores
a
Linear regression analyses
b
Exclusively
same-sex
attracted
Mostly same-sex
attracted
Equally
both-sex attracted
Mostly same-sex
attracted versus
exclusively same-
sex attracted
Equally both-sex
attracted versus
exclusively same-
sex attracted
Outcome
variables
Range M(SD)M(SD) M(SD) Fvalue df b (SE) pb(SE) p
Visibility discomfort;
n=1449)
0–4 (low to high) 0.99 (0.73) 1.28 (0.83) 1.35 (0.80) 50.42 (6, 1442) 0.24 (0.04) *** 0.28 (0.07) ***
Self-esteem;
n=1449)
0–4 (low to high) 2.86 (0.72) 2.68 (0.76) 2.60 (0.79) 21.63 (7, 1440) −0.05 (0.04) −0.03 (0.07)
a
Not controlled for other variables
b
Controlled for age, gender, importance, openness, and relationship experience with same-sex partner. Degree of openness was not controlled for in
relation to the outcome variable visibility discomfort
*p<0.05;**p< 0.01; ***p<0.001
3
In the Netherlands, the label ‘homosexual’is not considered derogatory
and can be used in a neutral way.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 215
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

orientation. However, this option did not create space for a
bisexual identity and a bisexual orientation was not fully ac-
knowledged. Young people could feel pressured to ultimately
Bchoose^between a homosexual or heterosexual orientation.
There seems to be space among young people, and espe-
cially in specific settings such as college life, for sexual be-
havior between women that is framed as bisexual or bi-curious
(i.e., people who have a curiosity or interest in sexual behavior
or relationships with more than one gender, but who do not
identify as bisexual). Among the participants, examples were
mentioned where sexual behavior between women was per-
mitted or even encouraged, as long as it was exciting for men
or at least did not make them feel threatened or excluded.
Claire’s account showed how she perceived having more
space for a bisexual than a lesbian identity in the context of
her student community. She felt mostly same-sex attracted, yet
labeled herself as bisexual to other people:
Lesbian …it sounds as if you don’twanttohavetodo
anything with men. It just sounds so final. I have just
fought so long to not label myself like that, but I still
have difficulties with that word. […]It’sverystrange
but I think, yes, you are it [lesbian], but you just don’t
call yourself that. That’s just the way it is. […]. Bi, well
that’s exciting and fun, while lesbian is immediately:
BWhoa!^They then speak to you differently, and that’s
a pity. (Claire, woman, 21 years)
Thompson (2006) noted that a lesbian position does not
leave a role for men and excludes young women from both
male and female peers who endorse heterosexuality. Like
Claire, several other young women mentioned that coming
out as lesbian distanced them more from their heterosexual
peers than coming out as bisexual. She knew several hetero-
sexual young women who had had sexual encounters with
other women without questioning their heterosexual orienta-
tion. Women’s sexual behavior framed as bisexual or bi-
curious was reconcilable with heterosexuality since it did not
leave men out of the picture as potential sexual or relational
partners. These bisexual or bi-curious sexual expressions pro-
vided behavioral space for young women to engage in sexual
exploration in adolescence; however, they did not consider
bisexuality to be a stable or serious long-term position or
identity. Thus, the hetero/homo binary was left intact.
There was less space for a bisexual identity and bisexual
expressions among men. Positive experiences and attitudes
towards sexual behavior between men framed as bisexual or
bi-curious were not brought up by any of the participants. In
line with other Dutch studies (Felten et al. 2010; Van Lisdonk
and Kooiman 2012), young men seemed to feel more
pressured than young women to conform to the hetero/homo
binary. With the exception of Tom, young men felt uncom-
fortable acknowledging that they felt (or had at some time felt)
attracted to both men and women. They seemed to prefer an
exclusively homosexual or heterosexual orientation. Several
young men reported that they had experienced a Bbisexual
phase^prior to their homosexual orientation. Yet, a bisexual
identification was undesirable for them. Ilan perceived himself
as bisexual, but wished he was unambiguously homosexual or
heterosexual. Erik and Stephen felt ambiguous about
interpreting their past crushes on young women, since they
preferred a homosexual orientation. They did not label them-
selves as bisexual to other people.
Relationship-Building and Expressing a Bisexual Orientation
Space to come out as bisexual was particularly limited when
people were in a long-term relationship with one partner. The
three participants, Ilan, Linda, and Nicola, who identified as
bisexual and who were in long-term relationships with one
partner, generally chose to pass for heterosexual or homosex-
ual, according to the gender of their partner. Ilan (man,
25 years) was too uncomfortable to disclose his curiosity
and slight desire for women to his friends and to his partner,
who was a man. They had the impression that his sexual
orientation had changed from bisexual to gay since he had a
long-term relationship with this partner. He described his sit-
uation as Ba kind of reversed being in the closet^:BThe word
in all situations is actually that I have a boyfriend. […]I only
implied that I have a boyfriend and then people assume that
you are ‘homo.’And as for bi, that doesn’texist.^
While Ilan passedforgay, Linda and Nicola, who were both
in long-term relationships with men, usually passed for hetero-
sexual. Both women were comfortable with their own bisexu-
ality, yet were selective in their openness to others. According
to 24-year-old Linda, it was important for her to be open about
her bisexuality since openness and honesty would increase
acceptance. However, her family and friends did not take her
bisexuality for granted the way she did. Her mother considered
her bisexuality to be a trial, or a past phase, since Linda now
had a boyfriend. Lesbian friends asked her: BWhat’s it like with
your boyfriend, and how is it to go back to a man?^Linda was
not open to her boyfriend’s circle of friends and family, who
were all heterosexual, because her boyfriend preferred her to
be cautious: BI want my friends to have a good impression of
you first, before they get prejudiced.^And he also said, BI
would find it strange if you talked about women all the time.^
Nicola, 21 years old, was also selective in her openness
about her bisexuality in heterosexual contexts. In her neigh-
borhood and daily life, people thought she lived an ordinary
life and was in a long-term heterosexual relationship.
However, that was not her whole story: BWe live a kind of a
double life. At home, we live as a little family. But in addition,
we have our erotic parties with swinging and friendships with
an erotic element.^Nicola’s mother and sister were the only
non-swinging straight people who knew about her bisexuality
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
216
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

and polyamorous lifestyle. She explains her reticence to be
open:
Look, if I’d come home with a woman or girlfriend, you
know, then I’dhavesaidtomyfamily:‘Listen, it’s a not
ahebutashe.’But that’s not how it was. So then it’s
really strange to say, like, ‘Well, I have something to tell
you: I live with Curt and that’s all going fine, but I’mbi.’
That feels strange.
Each of these three participants had found a way to express
their bisexuality within their long-term relationship. Linda and
Nicola had an agreement with their partners that they were
allowed to occasionally hook up with a woman under specific
conditions. Ilan mentioned with some embarrassment that he
had secretly visited a female sex worker. Relationship-
building for young people who were attracted to women and
men to some extent posed challenges. In this small sample,
there were no bisexual-identified participants who firmly pre-
ferred serial monogamy (i.e., preferring relationship or sex
partners sequentially, Rust 2002) or preferred casual sex and
no relationships.
Lack of Bisexual or Bi-inclusive Communities
The hetero/homo binary is not only the obvious norm among
heterosexual people, but also among many lesbian women
and gay men (Ault 1996; Barker et al. 2012a;Rust2002).
Bisexual-identified participants did not perceive their lesbian
and gay friends to be more open-minded or accepting of bi-
sexuality than their heterosexual friends.
Bisexual-identified young women, in particular, did not
feel completely at home in LGB public venues, which they
perceived more as lesbian and gay oriented. These young
women, as well as feminine-looking young women, reported
having been confronted with responses from lesbian women
that they did not look Blesbian enough.^This made them feel
marginalized and excluded. The bisexual-identified young
men did not have similar complaints about not feeling at home
in LGB public venues.
The young men did not address bisexual organizations or
public venues. For young women, there were a few online and
offline venues. According to Nicola, who has visited some
venues, these bisexual communities merely promoted one
specific kind of bisexuality:
[talking about bisexual communities] Well, I find it a
real teen scene. It’s very disappointing. The funny thing
is, at [name website and parties for bisexual young
women] …I have been there and then you find it’sall
chicks of 16 or 17 with their boyfriends. I find that odd:
All bi, but all with a boyfriend. Something isn’tright,
know what I mean? And then you see a man who asks
someone: ‘Fancy kissing my woman?’Well, t ha t’skind
of the level of things there.
These communities could be interpreted as promoting per-
formative bisexuality, centered around a male gaze
(Thompson 2006).
Nicola had difficulty in feeling connected and at home in
any community: The bisexual communities she knew were
predominantly organized around a narrowly defined form of
bisexuality, while she found lesbian communities not open
towards bisexuality. She liked the notion of polyamory and
together with her partner they became part of swinging com-
munities. However, she realized that swinging communities
only encouraged other-sex sexual behavior, and same-sex be-
havior between women, which convinced her that bisexuality
as a real sexual orientation was not fully accepted.
Discussion
This study shows that it is relevant to distinguish between
subgroups within the larger population of SSA individuals.
Generally, Dutch equally both-sex attracted young people re-
ported more negative experiences than their exclusively same-
sex attracted counterparts. They were less open to people in
their social network, reported less perceived acceptance by
their mother and extended family, and scored higher on visi-
bility discomfort and suicide attempts. Equally both-sex
attracted young people did not differ in degree of self-esteem,
suicidal ideation, or perceived experiences of victimization. It
was useful to control for other variables since seemingly large
differences between the exclusively same-sex attracted and
equally both-sex attracted subgroups on self-esteem and per-
ceived experiences of victimization in specific contexts disap-
peared, which implies these differences were accounted for by
other factors. It was relevant to separate the mostly same-sex
attracted participants from the other two subgroups because
the outcomes for this subgroup differed, often lying between
those for the exclusively same-sex attracted and equally both-
sex attracted subgroups.
This study demonstrates that a bisexual orientation is mar-
ginalized rather than irrelevant in people’s lives. While in the
survey, the equally both-sex attracted subgroup reported lower
scores on openness and the importance of their sexual attrac-
tion in their lives, this study provides indications that their
invisibility is not so much a consequence of a lower relevance
or desire to be open, but is related to feeling that there is a lack
of space in society to be open. The lower degree of openness
and higher degree of visibility discomfort remained significant
after controlling for the importance of sexual attraction, hav-
ing experience with same-sex partners and being younger.
These participants also generally felt less accepted compared
to exclusively same-sex attracted participants.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 217
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

In the interviews, all bisexual-identified participants men-
tioned difficulties in disclosing their sexual orientation to
others, also to same-sex attracted friends and partners. All
bisexual-identified participants used strategies to help them
feel more included and accepted in heteronormative or
lesbian/gay-normative contexts, such as passing for lesbian/
gay, and covering (i.e., making a great effort to adjust and
assimilate, even though others knew about their bisexuality,
Goffman, 1963). The space for a bisexual identity and for
bisexual expressions was limited to those forms that did not
challenge heteronormativity and the hetero/homo binary.
There was space for temporary bisexuality and same-sex sex-
ual behavior between women framed as bisexual or bi-curi-
ous. However, a bisexual identity or bisexuality as a valid
long-term sexual orientation was met with rejection or
suspicion.
Several specific issues for bisexual people were identified
as follows: The marginalization of bisexuality, difficulties in
being open and expressing bisexuality, particularly in relation-
ships, and a lack of bisexual or bi-inclusive communities.
They were well aware of bisexuality being associated with
non-monogamy, not being able to be a good partner and not
yet having made a choice. They attempted to strike a balance
between being true to themselves and risking causing harm to
social and intimate partner relationships by openly expressing
their bisexuality. The lack of bisexual or truly bi-inclusive
public venues imparted a sense of not belonging to a commu-
nity for several bisexual-identified participants.
The specific issues which were addressed were related to
the hetero/homo binary and to mononormativity. The margin-
alization, and therefore invisibility, of bisexuality in Dutch
society is related to the way sexual orientation is conceptual-
ized: As a hetero/homo binary in which sexual orientation is
perceived in an essentialist way, implying that heterosexuality
or homosexuality are the primary options (Maliepaard 2015a,
b;McLean2008; Richardson and Monro 2012;Rust2002). In
such a social climate, bisexuality is neither acknowledged nor
visible (Maliepaard 2015a,b;Rust2002). Rather, it is silenced
and denied (Maliepaard 2015a;McLean2008;Rust2002).
The American scholar Robinson came to a similar conclusion
and noticed that in interviews with Dutch LGBT adults about
Dutch LGBT communities, bisexuality was not discussed at
all (Robinson 2012). He stated that the Berasure of a bisexual
identity^is not surprising in a society in which sexuality is
constantly reified within a hetero/homo binary discourse
(Robinson 2012,p.335).
At the same time, their stories also show that
monosexuality (i.e., sexual attraction focused on only one
gender: heterosexuality and homosexuality) is the norm in
society. In a mononormative society, bisexuality is framed in
opposition to heterosexuality/homosexuality, thus creating
distance between these sexual orientations and fostering stig-
ma and stereotyping (Ault 1996). Bisexual-identified young
people often attempted to present themselves as monosexual
in order to foster acceptance.
In the literature, there are two seemingly contrasting per-
spectives on the space for bisexual identity and bisexual ex-
pressions among young people. There is an assumption about
young people being relatively rigid about nonconformity in
relation to gender and sexuality (Lobel et al. 2004), which
may also apply to the space for a bisexual identity and bisex-
ual expressions in the societal context of a dominant hetero/
homo binary. In contrast, other scholars noted evidence and
space for sexual fluidity, particularly among young women
(Dempsey et al. 2001; Diamond 2008; Savin-Williams 2005;
Thompson, 2006), which may also suggest space for a bisex-
ual identity and bisexual expressions. We found evidence for
both assumptions. Generally, the young SSA people in this
study appeared to be rather rigid in their conceptualization of
sexual orientation as hetero/homo binary. Without exception,
they perceived gender to be binary and none of them
questioned or played with this notion of gender.
However, the two contexts in which bisexual expressions
were permitted or tolerated both demonstrated sexual fluidity.
Bisexuality as a temporal phase in young people’ssexualde-
velopment shows that sexual orientation is not always fixed or
clear, and confirms the view that sexual orientation is a con-
tinuum and may change over time (Diamond 2008). Same-sex
sexual behavior between women framed as bisexual or bi-
curious provides space for young women’s desire to fully
explore their sexuality beyond their sexual self-identification
or labeling.
These spaces for a bisexual identity and bisexual expres-
sions were regulated within the constraints of the hetero/homo
binary, heteronormativity, and monosexuality: Both young
men and women felt pressured to be sure about their sexual
orientation, which implied a homosexual or heterosexual
identity. A bisexual phase, questioning, changing, and same-
sex behavior between women framed as bisexual or bi-curious
was allowed as they were young and at the beginning of their
sexual development, but they were expected ultimately to
choose between a heterosexual or homosexual orientation.
We also note that the space for a bisexual identity and bisexual
expressions was more limited for young men and that young
men were generally more uncomfortable about their bisexual
experiences.
Implications for Bi-inclusive Policies
The empirical findings provide four pointers for more bi-
inclusive policies: (a) awareness-raising concerning marginal-
ization, visibility and bi-specific issues; (b) community and
capacity building; (c) comprehensive policy based on gender
and sexuality diversity; and (d) comprehensive sexuality edu-
cation. An important first step is to promote awareness of
marginalization processes in relation to bisexuality, promote
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
218
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the visibility of bisexuality, and draw attention to specific
issues which are typically relevant to bisexual (young) people,
such as the existence of biphobia and recognition of diverse
desires in terms of relationships and challenges for bisexual
people in feeling a part of a community. A proportion of Dutch
young SSA people clearly expressed biphobia and they did
not always perceive bisexuality to be a serious and valid long-
term sexual identity. In a society in which bisexuality was
valued just as much as homosexuality, including among
SSA people, Dutch young people would probably not be so
cautious or uncomfortable in disclosing a bisexual orientation
compared to a homosexual orientation. Ministries should
screen their own language use in policies on biphobia and
implicit marginalization of bisexuality, and should explicitly
draw attention to the recognition of bisexuality and bisexual
people in lesbian and gay communities and wider society in
order to reduce biphobia (Felten and Maliepaard 2015). In
addition, interventions, activities, and research funded by the
government could be screened for bi-inclusiveness that goes
beyond lip service and to avoid mononormativity. For exam-
ple, gay-straight alliances are government-funded interven-
tions which are developed in several social domains. Yet, the
language used clearly marginalizes bisexuality.
Second, promoting community and capacity building of
bisexual communities and bi-inclusiveness of LGBT commu-
nities is important. Young bisexual-identified people did not
feel welcomed in LG(B) communities, nor did they find their
way to bisexual communities, while this study showed that
both-sex attracted and bisexual-identified young people con-
sidered their sexual orientation to be important. The bisexual-
identified participants felt marginalized and forced to adjust to
living in heteronormative and homonormative communities.
The only reference to bisexual communities was a community
for bisexual young women which was implicitly
heteronormative, with a focus on the male gaze. The young
bisexual-identified people in our study did not engage with
organizations explicitly focused on bisexual people, such as
the largest bisexual national network and interest group for
bisexuality, LNBi, nor Orpheus (a support organization for
homosexual and bisexual people in man/woman relation-
ships), or other organizations and initiatives focused on bisex-
uality, sexual fluidity, polyamory, and queerness. The well-
established and largest Dutch LGBT organization, COC
Netherlands, has recently started to organize initiatives to fos-
ter bi-inclusiveness; while this is promising, COC Netherlands
is still largely associated with homosexuality.
Although participants in this study did not address the need
for community and capacity building to increase societal vis-
ibility and political representation of bisexual people, this
strategy has been proven to be successful for other marginal-
ized subgroups. In the Netherlands, government funding of
the transgender movement has increased the capacity building
of this community and the visibility of transgender people in
society, which has consequently increased the representation
of transgender people in policy. Even though bisexual-
identified young people may not be interested to become ac-
tive in a bisexual community, they might still benefit from
strong, diverse, visible, and bisexual communities which pro-
mote societal visibility of bisexuality and which offer infor-
mation, support, and identification.
Dutch authorities can contribute to reducing marginaliza-
tion and increasing the visibility and perception of bi-specific
issues by fostering the representation of bisexual and bi-
inclusive communities and experts at the same time as they
consult gay- and lesbian-focused communities and experts
(Felten and Maliepaard 2015). In doing so, they do need to
be conscious of which bisexual people they consult and are
represented—including young bisexual people—and which
people remain marginalized (e.g., queer or polyamorous peo-
ple, bisexual people in monogamous other-sex relationships,
bisexual people with a migrant or non-middle class back-
ground or living in rural areas).
Third, bi-inclusive policies will not be successful if the
underlying goal remains focused on equality and emphasizing
sameness. This study showed that specific issues of bisexual-
identified young people were related to the unchallenged
hetero/homo binary and mononormativity. In a sexual minor-
ity approach based on sameness and normalization, issues
which specifically matter to bisexual people are difficult to
bring to light and to place on the political agenda, since the
hetero/homo binary and mononormativity are perpetuated and
not critically questioned. Furthermore, in line with other
scholars, we conclude that heteronormativity and related
views on sexuality and gender are not challenged in Dutch
society and politics (Maliepaard 2015a;Mepschenetal.
2010; Robinson 2012). As a consequence, people who do
not fit into a heteronormative framework are likely to be less
represented and remain structurally marginalized in such
LGBT policies (Maliepaard 2015a).
Hence, we note that comprehensive bi-inclusive policies
require a policy perspective focused on gender and sexual
diversity. A diversity perspective that recognizes differences
and diversified experiences and identities because of intersec-
tions promotes visibility of differences and gives voice to
being different (Ghorashi and Ponzoni 2014;Richardson
and Monro 2012). This leaves space for a diversity of experi-
ences and expressions of sex, sexuality, and gender as non-
binary, fluid, or genderless, which may also impact on views
and expressions in terms of relationships and Bthe family.^
In a society which values diversity, processes of normali-
zation in terms of power indifferences and bias can be criti-
cally explored and questioned (Ghorashi and Ponzoni 2014).
Policies could focus more on revealing and reducing margin-
alization of specific sexual, gender, and relational expressions
and identities, based on restrictive normativity and stereotypes
grounded in the hetero/homo binary, monosexuality, and the
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 219
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

conceptualization of sex and gender as binary. Instead of cur-
rent fragmented policies targeting inequality for women (pre-
dominantly focused on the labor market and gendered labor/
care division) and LGBT people (predominantly focused on
promoting acceptance and reducing stigmatization), an inte-
grated diversity perspective might open up the political arena
for raising new questions and issues. New issues which might
be particularly beneficial for bisexual people are the social and
legal recognition of plurality in relationships, including poly-
amorous partnerships; acknowledgement of non-binaries; and
fluidity in sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression.
A diversity perspective on sexuality and gender could be
particularly beneficial for young people who are exploring
their sexuality and may experience doubts and changing de-
sires. In a society which recognizes sexual and gender diver-
sity and fluidity, pressure to know or choose a sexual orienta-
tion would decrease and it would be easier for (young) people
to speak about their desires, doubts, and worries with others,
which might enhance the likelihood of developing a strong
(sexual) self. Moreover, they may feel more comfortable in
perceiving their sexual orientation and gender as beyond
binaries.
Finally, policies based ondiversity may encourage compre-
hensive sexuality and gender education based on the above-
mentioned notions. Clearly, these SSA young people
expressed binary conceptualizations of sexual orientation
and gender. In 2012, the Dutch government introduced attain-
ment targets for Dutch schools in relation to sexuality and
sexual diversity. While schools are free to teach their own
views on sexual diversity, in funding school education pro-
grams, the government could formulate a basic set of topics
and a minimum of research-based information, including in-
formation on bisexuality and gender diversity.
Limitations and Research Suggestions
A limitation of this study was the use of a convenience sam-
ple, which may have drawbacks regarding the sample compo-
sition. In the Netherlands, it is almost impossible to draw a
representative sample within this age range which is large
enough to distinguish between sexual attraction subgroups
among SSA people. In anticipation of possible drawbacks,
we used offline and online recruitment channels, aiming at
young people in general as well as LGB young people and
bisexual young people in particular. Nevertheless, recruitment
through self-selection and self-report may have attracted par-
ticipants who are relatively open about their sexual orienta-
tion, who affiliate with LGB communities, and who are less
likely to be bisexual oriented (Saewyc et al. 2009). In future
research, a better option would be to use large general research
panels in which possible sample selectivity due to LGB-
related recruitment is minimal (Herek 2009; Kuyper 2015a;
McDermott 2010).
Moreover, more in-depth research among bisexual people,
with a particular focus on those who do not identify with or
participate in LGB communities, would be interesting. Our
qualitative sample was rather small and did not include the
full range of the diverse stories of bisexual people. The inter-
viewees in our study viewed gender as a binary. There were no
or few interviewees who preferred serial monogamy, casual
sex, no relationships, and none identified as queer, gender
fluid, or transgender. These stories might provide new insights
on limited space in sexuality and gender diversity, and conse-
quently additional policy recommendations.
Unfortunately, we were unable to distinguish between
equally both-sex attracted young men and women in the sur-
vey. Since the quantitative sample consisted of a relatively
small number of equally both-sex attracted men, the results
may not have captured gender-specific issues for this group.
To reduce marginalization of bisexuality and foster a better
understanding of the experiences of bisexual people, we en-
courage researchers to always be explicit about measuring
sexual orientation and gender. They should also not assume
self-evident links between sexual attraction and identification.
In the case of sexual attraction, researchers should distinguish
between different attraction subgroups, if possible.
Furthermore, assessing non-binary choices of gender identity
in large-scale survey studies requires attention.
Finally, the quantitative data presented here were a subset
of a larger survey, which addressed a broad range of topics.
Therefore, extensive measurement of topics such as internal-
ized homo/biphobia or composition, quality, and quantity of
social networks was not possible. More in-depth studies on
attitudes towards bisexuality and bisexual expression, and the
impact of biphobia could provide a better insight into the
origins and processes of marginalization. A gender
perspective is useful here. Herek (2000) noted that attitudes
are likely to be different towards lesbian women, gay men,
bisexual women, and bisexual men, since social interaction
may impact on individuals’own sexual and gender identity.
This suggests that a gender and sexualdiversity perspective on
stigma and normativity might provide better insights than a
sexual minority perspective.
Conclusions
Our aim in this article was to place on the academic and policy
research agenda the idea that it is important to distinguish
consistently between homosexuality and bisexuality, to be
aware of diversity in experiences and to develop bi-inclusive
policies. While there is a growing academic and political
awareness that attention for bisexuality is needed, there are
still few good practices regarding what bi-inclusive policies
should look like. Based on our study, we argue that policies
should focus on awareness of marginalization processes and
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
220
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

invisibility of bisexuality, specific problems bisexual-
identified people encounter, insight into and attention to
biphobia, community and capacity building, and comprehen-
sive sexuality and gender education. Many of the reported
difficulties for both-sex attracted and bisexual-identified
young people were related to a conceptualization of sexual
orientation as a hetero/homo binary and the norm of
monosexuality. We would suggest that a policy model which
focuses on sameness and normalization is not likely to chal-
lenge the hetero/homo binary and mononormativity, and
therefore cannot be truly bi-inclusive. A model based on a
more comprehensive perspective on gender and sexual diver-
sity could offer more space for bisexual identities and expres-
sions. This would not only be beneficial to bisexual people,
but also to all those, and especially young people, who are
exploring their sexuality and developing their sexual self.
Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the funding for the
quantitative data collection by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture,
and Science and the role played by Diana D. van Bergen, Ph.D., in the
design and logistics of the quantitative data collection. We wish to thank
Henny Bos, Ph.D., for her comments on an early version of this
manuscript.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-
priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Ault, A. (1996). Ambiguous identity in an unambiguous sex/gender
structure: the case of bisexual women. The Sociological Quarterly,
37(30), 449–463.
Barker, M., Bowes-Catton, H., Iantaffi, A., Cassidy, A., & Brewer, L.
(2008). British bisexuality: a snapshot of bisexual identities in the
United Kingdom. Journal of Bisexuality, 8(1), 141–162.
Barker, M., Richards, C., Jones, R., Bowes-Catton, H., Plowman, T.,
Yockney, J., & Morgan, M. (2012a). The bisexuality report: bisexual
inclusion in LGBT equality and diversity. Retrieved from http://
www.bisexualindex.org.uk/uploads/Main/TheBisexualityReport.
pdf.
Barker, M., Yockney, J., Richards, C., Jones, R., Bowes-Catton, H., &
Plowman, T. (2012b). Guidelines for researching and writing about
bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 12(3), 376–392.
Cox, N., Dewaele, A., Van Houtte, M., & Vincke, J. (2011). Stress-related
growth, coming out, and internalized homonegativity in lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youth. An examination of stress-related growth
within the minority stress model. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(1),
117–137.
Cox, N., Vanden Berghe, W., Dewaele, A., & Vincke, J. (2010).
Acculturation strategies and mental health in gay, lesbian, and bi-
sexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1199–
1210.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting
mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parents’
awareness of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’sexual orientation.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 474–482.
De Graaf, H., Meijer, S., Poelman, J., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2005). Seks
onder je 25e: Seksuele gezondheid van jongeren in Nederland anno
2005 [Sex under the age of 25: sexual health of youth in the
Netherlands in 2005]. RNG/Eburon: Utrecht / Delft.
Dempsey, D., Hillier, L., & Harrison, L. (2001). Gendered (s)explorations
among same-sex attracted young people in Australia. Journal of
Adolescence, 24(1), 67–81.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: understanding women’sloveand
desire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Doorduin, T. (2015). Sexual orientation, gender identity and desire for
transition. In H. de Graaf, B. Bakker, & C. Wijsen (Eds.), Aworld of
difference. The sexual health of LGBT people in the Netherlands
(pp. 21–37). Rutgers: Utrecht.
Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in hetero-
sexual undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(3),
317–326.
Felten, H., & Maliepaard, E. (2015). Biseksualiteit: 10 keer vraag en
antwoord [Bisexuality: 10 questions and answers].Utrecht:
Movisie.
Felten, H., Van Hoof, J., & Schuyf, J. (2010). Wees jezelf, maar wees niet
anders: heterojongeren over homo- en biseksualiteit [Be yourself,
but don’t be different: heterosexual young people talk about homo-
sexuality and bisexuality]. In S. Keuzenkamp (Ed.), Steeds gewoner,
nooit gewoon. Acceptatie van homoseksualiteit in Nederland (pp.
54–75). The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research |
SCP.
Franssens, D. (2010). Sexual risk behavior and mental health of young
gay men. Maastricht: University Maastricht.
Friese, S. (2012). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. London: Sage.
Ghorashi, H., & Ponzoni, E. (2014). Reviving agency: taking time and
making space forrethinking diversity and inclusion. European
Journal of Social Work, 17(2), 161–174.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Hegna, K., & Rossow, I. (2007). What’s love got to do with it? Substance
use and social integration for young people categorized by same-sex
experience and attractions. Journal of Drug Issues, 37(2), 229–256.
Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: do heterosexuals’
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social
Issues, 56(2), 251–266.
Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among
sexual minority adults in the United States: prevalence estimates
from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal
Vio le nc e, 2 4(1), 54–74.
Herek, G. M., Norton, A. T., Allen, T. J., & Sims, C. L. (2010).
Demographic, psychological, and social characteristics of self-
identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in a US probability sam-
ple. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(3), 176–200.
Kertzner, R. M., Meyer, I. H., Frost, D. M., & Stirratt, M. J. (2009). Social
and psychological well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals:
the effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity. The American
JournalofOrthopsychiatry,79(4), 500–510.
Keuzenkamp, S. (Ed.) (2010). Steeds gewoner, nooit gewoon. Acceptatie
van homoseksualiteit in Nederland [Increasingly normal, never the
norm. Acceptance of homosexuality in the Netherlands]. The
Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research | SCP.
Keuzenkamp, S., Kooiman, N., & Van Lisdonk, J. (2012). Niet te ver uit
de kast: Ervaringen van homo- en biseksuelen in Nederland [Not
too far out of the closet: experiences of homosexual and bisexual
people in the Netherlands]. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute
for Social Research | SCP.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222 221
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Keuzenkamp, S., & Kuyper, L. (2013). Acceptance of lesbians, gays,
bisexuals and transgender individuals in the Netherlands 2013.
The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research | SCP.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behaviour in the
human male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: reproducing the het-
erosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social
Problems, 52(4), 477–498.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolff, T. (1985). Sexual orientation: a multi-
variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1-2), 35–
49.
Kuyper, L. (2006). Seksualiteit en seksuele gezondheid bij homo- en
biseksuelen [Sexuality and sexual health among gay and bisexual
people]. In F. Bakker & I. Vanwesenbeeck (Eds.), Seksuele
gezondheid in Nederland (pp. 167–188). Delft: Eburon.
Kuyper, L. (2011). Sexual orientation and health: general and minority
stress factors explaining health differences between lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and heterosexual individuals. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Kuyper, L. (2013). Seksuele oriëntatie en werk: ervaringen van lesbische,
homoseksuele,biseksuele en heteroseksuele werknemers [Sexual ori-
entation and the workplace: experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and heterosexual employees]. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for
Social Research | SCP.
Kuyper, L. (2015a). Jongeren en seksuele oriëntatie: ervaringen van en
opvattingen over lesbische, homoseksuele, biseksuele en
heteroseksuele jongeren [Young people and sexual orientation: ex-
periences of and views on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual
young people]. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Social
Research | SCP.
Kuyper, L. (2015b). Wel trouwen, niet zoenen: De houding van de
Nederlandse bevolking tegenover lesbische, homoseksuele,
biseksuele en transgender personen 2015 [Marriage yes, kissing
no. Dutch population’s attitude towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender persons]. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Social
Research | SCP.
Lobel, T. E., Nov-Krispin, N., Schiller, D., Lobel, O., & Feldman, A.
(2004). Gender discriminatory behavior during adolescence and
young adulthood: a developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 33(6), 535–546.
Maliepaard, E. (2015a). Bisexual citizenship in the Netherlands: on
homo-emancipation and bisexual representations in national eman-
cipation policies. Sexualities, 18(4), 377–393.
Maliepaard, E. (2015b). Bisexual spaces: exploring geographies of bisex-
ualities. ACME, 14(1), 217–234.
McDermott, E. (2010). Researching and monitoring adolescence and
sexual orientation: asking the right questions, at the right time.
Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
McLean, K. (2008). Silences and stereotypes: the impact of
(mis)constructions of bisexuality on Australian bisexual men and
women. Gay & Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 4(3), 158–
165.
Mepschen, P., Duyvendak, J. W., & Tonkens, E. H. (2010). Sexual pol-
itics, orientalism and multicultural citizenship in the Netherlands.
Sociology, 44(5), 962–979.
Oosterhuis, H., & Lipperts, A. (2013). Falling between two stools: the
difficult emancipation of bisexuality in the Netherlands. Journal of
Bisexuality, 13(2), 245–272.
Richardson, D., & Monro, S. (2012) Sexuality, equality and diversity..
Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, B. A. (2012). Is this what equality looks like? How assimila-
tion marginalizes the Dutch LGBT community. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 9(4), 327–336.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rust, P. C. (2002). Bisexuality: the state of the union. Annual Review of
Sex Research, 13(1), 180–240.
Saewyc, E. M., Homma, Y., Skay, C. L., Bearinger, L. H., Resnick, M. D.,
& Reis, E. (2009). Protective factors in the lives of bisexual adoles-
cents in North America. American Journal of Public Health, 99(1),
110–117.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager.Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Vrangalova, Z. (2013).Mostly heterosexual as a
distinct sexual orientation group: a systematic review of the empir-
ical evidence. Developmental Review, 33(1), 58–88.
Statistics Netherlands. (2012). Begrippen. [Concepts]. Retrieved from
http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.htm.
Steffens, M. C., & Wagner, C. (2004). Attitudes toward lesbians, gay
men, bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of
Sex Research, 41(2), 137–149.
Szymanski, D. M. M., & Chung, Y. B. (2001). The lesbian internalized
homophobia scale. JournalofHomosexuality,41(2), 37–52.
Thompson, E. M. (2006). Girl friend orgirlfriend? Journal of Bisexuality,
6(3), 47–67.
TK. (1985/1986). Overheidsbeleid en homoseksualiteit Nota
[Government policy memorandum and homosexuality].
TK. (2007/2008). Gewoon homo zijn: Lesbisch- en homo-
emancipatiebeleid 2008-2011 [Simply gay: Dutch government’s
LGBT policy document 2008-2011].
TK. (2010/2011). Hoofdlijnen emancipatiebeleid 2011-2015 [Outline
emancipation policy 2011-2015].
TK. (2012/2013). Hoofdlijnenbrief emancipatiebeleid 2013-2016
[Outline emancipation policy 2013-2016].
Van Lisdonk, J., & Kooiman, N. (2012). Biseksualiteit: vele gezichten en
tegelijkertijd onzichtbaar [Bisexuality: many faces and at the same
time invisible]. In S. Keuzenkamp, N. Kooiman, & J. Van Lisdonk
(Eds.), Niet te ver uit de kast: ervaringen van homo- en biseksuelen
in Nederland (pp. 78–99). The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for
Social Research | SCP.
Van Lisdonk, J., & Van Bergen, D. D. (2010). Homojongeren en hun
seksuele voorkeur: invulling en uiting [Gay and lesbian young peo-
ple and their sexual orientation: experiences and expressions]. In S.
Keuzenkamp (Ed.), Steeds gewoner, nooit gewoon. Acceptatie van
homoseksualiteit in Nederland (pp. 132–153). The Hague:
The Netherlands Institute for Social Research | SCP.
Sex Res Soc Policy (2017) 14:206–222
222
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com