Sexual orientation is an interesting concept in that even researchers disagree on its exact nature. Some of you are familiar with the pioneering work of Alfred Kinsey, who was a trained zoologist that later became interested in human sexuality. He developed one of the first scales of sexual orientation that looked primarily at sexual behaviour and secondarily at erotic attraction toward one gender or both genders. Other researchers since then have included components like sexual fantasies, sexual arousal, social preference, sexual identity, and emotional aspects (strong positive feelings, such as romantic or passionate love). Consequently, researchers do not agree on a definition of what constitutes sexual orientation. Nonetheless, the general consensus has traditionally been that sexual orientation is a stable characteristic in a person’s life (however it is defined) whereas sexual identity refers to the self-chosen label that individuals give themselves. Following from this, it was believed that once gay, always gay, or once lesbian, always lesbian. Particularly with regard to sexual minority women, nothing could be further from the truth! This month will focus on some of these recent findings as they apply to women, and next month, I will review what we currently know (or more accurately, think) about sexual orientation in men.

First off, research consistently shows that far more women in general report having same-sex feelings/attraction compared to men. Percentages for men in general, rarely exceed 5 percent, whereas for women this figure is upwards of 32 percent. One can speculate many reasons why this might be so. Is it, for example, due to (a) differing socialization practices regarding the male role and the female role (e.g., women are given more opportunity to express strong feelings toward other women compared to men’s expression of same-sex feelings), (b) the differential effects of estrogen and testosterone, (c) a genetic gender-typed difference, or (d) the result of something altogether different? A clear and specific answer to questions like these is rarely obtained in psychology.

Notable researchers like Lisa Diamond contend that women’s sexuality is much more fluid and plastic compared to men’s, meaning that it changes under different situations and life circumstances. Often when reading research that makes such claims, it is easy to forget not to over generalize what has actually been found. For example, about 97 percent of heterosexual individuals maintain their identity labels over time. [1] To me, that suggests very strong stability! Diamond has tracked 79 women (beginning at average age of 19) with sexual minority identities over a 10-year period. [2] These women originally identified as lesbian, bisexual, or unlabeled. Over the 10 years, two-thirds of her sample changed their identity labels at least once, and one-third had changed their labels two or more times. Surprisingly, the most commonly adopted label was “unlabeled.” Of her sample, 12 women ended up re-identifying as heterosexual during the study. Of these 12, only three said they no longer had attractions for women, but even they could not rule this out as a possibility again in the future. [1] In her entire sample, only 18 percent said that choice had played a role in their sexuality, and over two-thirds believed they were born with it.

Research by Diamond has clearly demonstrated that sexual minority women experience shifts in their identity labels over time. However, what significance does this actually have? We know that many queer individuals previously held a heterosexual identity before “coming out.” As most of us appreciate, it takes time to settle on a label that really fits, and many prefer not to label their identities so as to avoid having to fit a certain stereotype or fit behavioural expectations (e.g., that a lesbian can never enjoy sex with a man or that there are no “true” bisexuals). Erik Erikson, a famous identity theorist pioneer, believed that it took time to establish one’s identity, and James Marcia built on his work by delineating four different identity statuses: foreclosure, diffusion, moratorium, and achievement. Those who foreclose are said to make a commitment to an identity status without going through a process of questioning. Those who are diffused are uncertain about their identity and they are not attempting to make clear sense of it. The moratorium refers to those who are actively exploring alternatives but who have not made a commitment yet. Finally, identity achievement is reached when individuals establish a clear sense of who they are.

The more choices that are available to individuals, the longer it generally takes to make a commitment to one of them. If, like our ancestors, we had few options available to us regarding identity or career choice, our decision will likely be foreclosed as we simply have to accept our “plight.” The concept of choice, in fact, simply did not exist “for most people in most historical periods.” [3] In a complex world with many choices, however, one needs to make important decisions from a vast array of possibilities. Consequently, it takes more time to sift through the options before deciding on one that creates the “best fit.” As the moratorium continues, it seems entirely reasonable that an identity label chosen today will need to be modified as our experience informs us to broaden or narrow our scope.

Compared to men, women are far more likely to report bisexuality and less likely to report homosexuality. [4] Bisexual individuals often vacillate between their interest in one gender or the other in consequence of the other person’s personality qualities. There is also research that reveals that bisexuals – whether male or female – generally prefer sexual relations with males and intimacy with females. [5] No doubt this creates considerable confusion for those who want to give themselves or others a “label.” I conclude that what Diamond has discovered, then, is that sexual minority women take longer than heterosexual women, straight men, and gay men to define themselves due to the extended moratorium required to adequately make sense of the fluctuation of bisexual interests (which many women report to varying degrees).

There is little question that components of our sexuality change over time. For example, you can probably recall a time when you enjoyed certain sexual fantasies while at other times, other fantasies became more arousing. One of the questions that has never been answered is whether people are bothered by the incongruities they may experience in their sexual lives. If most of your sexual fantasies for a period of time are about making out with the same gender but your sexual behaviour is exclusively opposite gender, does that become troublesome, or does it potentially enrich your sex life? [6] Would it be more troublesome if you have a well-entrenched sexual identity as lesbian but you find yourself falling madly in love with a man? I would suspect so, but we don’t have empirical answers to these questions. Diamond did report in her study that by the 10-year mark, 10 percent of those who initially identified as lesbian were in long-term relationships with men. [7]

What we can conclude at this point is that some women are capable of change in components of their sexual orientation, and such awareness or development of this change can occur at practically any age. It remains, however, an experience of the minority of women. Heterosexual sexual identity for women is generally consistent, [8] but perhaps this is more the result of identity foreclosure than of genuine stability. [9] This is clearly an area that needs much more research to help unravel the mystery of differences found between those women who define as heterosexual and those who define as queer.

Dr. Alderson is an associate professor of counselling psychology at the University of Calgary who specializes in gay and lesbian studies. He also maintains a private practice. He can be contacted by confidential email at alderson@ucalgary.ca, or by confidential voice mail at 605-5234.

References:

1. Diamond, L. M. (2007). A dynamical systems approach to the development and expression of female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(2), 142-161.

2. Diamond, L. M. (2008). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 5-14.

3. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the creation of sexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/ heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 307-320). New York: Oxford University Press.

4. Weinrich, J. D., & Klein, F. (2002). Bi-gay, bi-straight, and bi-bi: Three bisexual subgroups identified using cluster analysis of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 111-139.

5. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

6. Koertge, N. (1990).Constructing concepts of sexuality: A philosophical commentary. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/ heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 387-397). New York: Oxford University Press.

7. Diamond (2007).

8. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2007). Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(3), 385-394.

9. Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Savoy, H. B., & Hampton, D. (2008). Development, reliability, and validity of the Measure of Sexual Identity Exploration and Commitment. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 22-33.