BiB : No it isn't. Only a tiny almost negligible percentage of the population constitute bi males - why do they need representation in a soap opera, as opposed to other tiny tiny minorities and plenty of other not so tiny minorities who never get a look in?

Quite apart from the response above, do you mean that you'd prefer to have plots driven by issues rather than character?

You couldn't be more wrong. A significant percentage of men are between exclusively gay and exclusively straight, even if they have a greater preference one way or the other.

And even if they were a minuscule proportion of men, it doesn't negate their need for representation.

Maybe we should have a soap where no old, white, hetero men are represented in any way, and see how you like that?

I like to see interesting, well-drawn characters explore interesting, relevant issues.

He needs to start something with Morris from the parcel storyline.

There is a very poor representation of Bi men in Soaps.

What do you call significant and on what do you base your speculation? At the last Government survey some years ago out of only 6% identifying as LGBT only 0.4% identified themselves as bi. At the time, the LGBT Rights group Stonewall said that the figure was reasonable. Even allowing for some people not wanting to answer, you can hardly spin that as 'significant'.

I always take those surveys with a pinch of salt. Until the stigma of being LGBTA is completely removed, the results will always be a bit iffy.

And even if it's true that only 0.4% of the population identify as bi, it's pretty obvious that far more than 0.4% of people behave bisexually. Just because they don't wish to identify officially as bi, doesn't mean they aren't to some degree bi in reality. After all, identifying as bi is no easy picnic.

I also think there's a lot of misunderstanding over what bi actually means. It might be true that only a tiny percentage of people are "50/50" bi (equally and evenly attracted to both genders).

Many bi people lean towards one gender more, and so may well identify as either straight or gay in public, just to save themselves a whole lot of hostility and hassle. There's still a lot of pressure from society for bi people to pass as monosexual.

I interpret what you've written as meaning that 0.4% of 6% identify themselves as bi. That would be 0.024% of the population (give or take a decimal point ).

I take it that wasn't what you meant?

Tony from EE many years ago, he dated women and also Simon, Tiffs brother.

Why would anyone want to achieve an increase in bi male visibility?

I agree with you. The storylines involving the character wouldn't have to be about their sexuality, though in that case, what would be the point of them in the first place? If his sexuality was never to be mentioned.

How would anyone know if he was bi then?

Only by showing him having affairs with both males and females, and then of course all his storylines would be based on sex and affairs etc. So it'd end up still being about his sexuality wouldn't it?

It wouldn't work on the Square anyway. Because if a character is seen to be publicly involved with a man, then I doubt it'd be workable in the script for a female character to then be attracted to him as well.

It could work if it were all secrets I suppose.

Bisexuality scares people

It comforts people to think that if they like the opposite sex, they are 100% straight and couldn't be tempted by the same sex under any circumstances

TV bosses are also under pressure not to portray sexuality as fluid

Also, the idea that only 0.6% of the population is bisexual is absolutely laughable

If people were honest about their potential attractions, there'd be comfortably more people identifying as bi than gay

a) the figure was actually 0.4%, but feel free to double that if you wish - you're still well short of 1% of the population.

b) Your second point sounds like utter rubbish to me, and since you've got zero, zilch, nada to back it up, I'll just remind myself that everyone's allowed an opinion, however fanciful.

Why not? They did it with Danny Pennant.

I'm always interested in seeing human behaviour shown believably on soaps.

Not sure what it is about bisexuality that soaps find so hard to get right. I remember when Hollyoaks created Danny Lomax, he was meant to be out and bi, but they wrote him exactly the same as a married closet gay. Then killed him off pronto. It's a mystery.

I'll be really disappointed if it turns out that Robert Sugden on ED is meant to be 100% gay and just "in denial." It would completely rewrite his history and be the biggest load of horsesh*t ever. The guy likes sex with women and, for some reason, Aaron. That's just who he is.

HO had quite a good mix of bi characters: Danny was mainly attracted to men whereas Lockie is mainly attracted to women. Ravi was roughly equal and Kris did his own thing. And then we have Craig who liked women but fell in love with one man. You also had characters who experimented like Zoe and Texas.

HO is the only show who doesn't really label people.

Hollyoaks characters don't have a sexuality. They just shag everyone and everything

I agree about Danny Pennant, no idea why he didn't work. Not sure if it were the bi thing, or just his character, and no stories for him.

The thing is though, I don't remember him having an actual relationship with Lucy, it was all a bit hazy if I remember? And I don't remember if he and Syed actually did anything or if it was just steamy looks and flirting?

But the reason why I don't think it would work in EE, is people would find it off putting if they see a man having a full on relationship with say a main female character like Roxy, and then after they split, we see the bi character then getting it on with Max for example.

To me, it'd all be a bit icky, and inevitably the bi character will be one dimensional as his storylines will all feature around his sexuality.

What's wrong with labelling people? We've all got labels haven't we?

I don't find bisexuality icky.