Find the discussion that fits.
Browse focused conversations about bisexual identity, coming out, relationships, wellbeing, safety, community, and representation. Read as a guest and create a free account when you want to reply.
Read quietly • Reply when ready • Share only what feels safe
Media does more than reflect ideas about bisexuality.
Repeated portrayals can also shape what people expect bisexual people to be like in real life.
Bisexual characters have often been written as confused, indecisive, unfaithful, highly sexual, manipulative, unable to choose, or naturally dissatisfied with one partner.
Sometimes bisexuality is used mainly to create surprise, drama, sexual tension, or humour.
Other stories treat it as a temporary stage before a character is eventually understood as straight, gay, or lesbian.
None of these storylines is automatically harmful on its own.
Bisexual people can be uncertain.
They can cheat.
They can prefer non-monogamy.
They can change labels.
They can have complicated relationships.
They can make jokes about their own experiences.
The problem appears when the same traits are repeatedly presented as though they follow naturally from bisexuality itself.
Bisexuality, infidelity, and non-monogamy
One particularly persistent pattern links attraction to more than one gender with an inability to remain faithful.
A bisexual character may be portrayed as needing partners of different genders, becoming dissatisfied with monogamy, or cheating because one partner supposedly cannot fulfil every part of their attraction.
That can influence real relationships.
A bisexual partner may later be asked whether they will eventually “miss” another gender, whether monogamy is realistic for them, or whether attraction itself makes infidelity more likely.
But orientation and relationship structure are different things.
Bisexual people can be monogamous, non-monogamous, single, partnered, faithful, unfaithful, or uncertain about what relationship structure suits them—just like anyone else.
Consensual non-monogamy can also be valid representation.
The stereotype appears when bisexuality is treated as the automatic explanation for it, rather than showing relationship structure as a separate choice involving consent, compatibility, and agreements.
Bisexuality as a temporary phase
Another common pattern treats bisexuality as a stage a character eventually moves beyond.
A character may identify as bisexual, date people of different genders, or clearly show bisexual attraction, only for a later relationship to be presented as proof that they were really straight, gay, or lesbian all along.
People genuinely do change labels as they understand themselves better.
That experience deserves representation too.
The problem is not that fictional people—or real people—must keep the same identity forever.
The problem is when bisexuality itself is repeatedly framed as confusion, experimentation, immaturity, or an incomplete understanding that naturally leads to another “final” orientation.
When that pattern appears often enough, real bisexual people may hear the same expectation applied to them:
“You’ll eventually choose.”
“You’re probably actually gay.”
“You’ll settle down and realise you’re straight.”
“Bisexuality is just a phase.”
Media can therefore influence not only how other people respond, but how bisexual viewers interpret their own uncertainty.
Bisexuality as a joke
Humour can spread stereotypes in a different way.
Bisexuality is sometimes used as an easy punchline: the person who wants everyone, cannot choose, will flirt with anything, is automatically interested in threesomes, or is supposedly incapable of staying satisfied with one partner.
Context matters.
A joke among trusted bisexual friends may feel very different from the same joke being made by someone who already treats bisexuality as unserious or suspicious.
Bisexual people can also use humour about their own experiences in ways that create recognition and community.
The issue is not that bisexuality can never be joked about.
It is whether the humour keeps reinforcing the same narrow assumptions until they begin to feel like common sense.
Repeated jokes can make it harder to challenge a stereotype because anyone who objects may be told they are “taking it too seriously.”
They can also make someone less willing to disclose their bisexuality if they expect their identity to immediately become a sexual joke or source of teasing.
From fiction to real-life expectations
Media stereotypes can influence partners, friends, family members, coworkers, LGBTQ+ communities, and bisexual people themselves.
Someone may expect a bisexual partner to need multiple partners.
They may assume attraction must be perfectly equal across genders.
They may believe a relationship proves someone is now straight or gay.
They may treat uncertainty as evidence that bisexuality is temporary.
They may assume bisexual people are more sexual, less trustworthy, or automatically open to particular relationship arrangements.
Sometimes these expectations are obvious.
Other times they appear as “harmless” questions, jokes, dating assumptions, or repeated requests for reassurance.
Not every imperfect portrayal creates harm.
Characters should be allowed to be flawed, complicated, selfish, sexual, confused, funny, or wrong.
Good representation does not require bisexual characters to be morally perfect.
The bigger question is whether audiences are given enough variety that one repeated trait stops functioning as a definition of bisexuality.
More diverse representation allows bisexual characters to be individuals rather than evidence for a stereotype.
Have portrayals of bisexuality in film, television, books, music, games, celebrity coverage, or online culture affected how other people treated you—or how you understood yourself?
Which stereotypes have had the strongest real-life impact?
Have you encountered assumptions about cheating, monogamy, needing multiple genders, bisexuality being “just a phase,” hypersexuality, indecision, or bisexuality being treated as a joke?
And have you seen stories that challenged those expectations in a way that felt meaningful?
Please focus on patterns, portrayals, and their effects rather than attacking performers, creators, or other members for interpreting a story differently. Avoid treating any stereotype as a fact about bisexual people.