Category: Straight / Gay

Posted on

Sex? Sexual intercourse? Neither?

— Teens weigh in on evolving definitions — and habits

By JOCELYN GECKER

Situationships. “Sneaky links.” The “talking stage,” the flirtatious getting-to-know-you phase — typically done via text — that can lead to a hookup.

High school students are having less sexual intercourse. That’s what the studies say. But that doesn’t mean they’re having less sex.

The language of young love and lust, and the actions behind it, are evolving. And the shift is not being adequately captured in national studies, experts say.

For years, studies have shown a decline in the rates of American high school students having sex. That trend continued, not surprisingly, in the first years of the pandemic, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study found that 30% of teens in 2021 said they had ever had sex, down from 38% in 2019 and a huge drop from three decades ago, when more than half of teens reported having sex.

The Associated Press took the findings to teenagers and experts around the country to ask for their interpretation. Parents: Some of the answers may surprise you.

THE MEANING OF SEX: DEPENDS WHO YOU ASK

For starters, what is the definition of sex?

“Hmm. That’s a good question,” says Rose, 17, a junior at a New England high school.

She thought about it for 20 seconds, then listed a range of possibilities for heterosexual sex, oral sex and relations between same-sex or LGBTQ partners. On her campus, short-term hookups — known as “situationships” — are typically low commitment and high risk from both health and emotional perspectives.

There are also “sneaky links” — when you hook up in secret and don’t tell your friends. “I have a feeling a lot more people are quote unquote having sex — just not necessarily between a man and a woman.”

For teens today, the conversation about sexuality is moving from a binary situation to a spectrum and so are the kinds of sex people are having. And while the vocabulary around sex is shifting, the main question on the CDC survey has been worded the same way since the government agency began its biannual study in 1991: Have you “ever had sexual intercourse?”

“Honestly, that question is a little laughable,” says Kay, 18, who identifies as queer and attends a public high school near Lansing, Michigan. “There’s probably a lot of teenagers who are like, ‘No, I’ve never had sexual intercourse, but I’ve had other kinds of sex.’”

The AP agreed to use teenagers’ first or middle names for this article because of a common concern they expressed about backlash at school, at home and on social media for speaking about their peers’ sex lives and LGBTQ+ relations.

SEXUAL IDENTITY IS EVOLVING

Several experts say the CDC findings could signal a shift in how teen sexuality is evolving, with gender fluidity becoming more common along with a decrease in stigma about identifying as not heterosexual.

They point to another finding in this year’s study that found the proportion of high school kids who identify as heterosexual dropped to about 75%, down from about 89% in 2015, when the CDC began asking about sexual orientation. Meanwhile, the share who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual rose to 15%, up from 8% in 2015.

“I just wonder, if youth were in the room when the questions were being created, how they would be worded differently,” said Taryn Gal, executive director of the Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health.

Sex is just one of the topics covered by the CDC study, called the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. One of the main sources of national data about high school students on a range of behaviors, it is conducted every two years and asks about 100 questions on topics including smoking, drinking, drug use, bullying, carrying guns and sex. More than 17,000 students at 152 public and private high schools across the country responded to the 2021 survey.

“It’s a fine line we have to try to walk,” says Kathleen Ethier, director of the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health, which leads the study.

From a methodological standpoint, changing a question would make it harder to compare trends over time. The goal is to take a national snapshot of teenage behavior, with the understanding that questions might not capture all the nuance. “It doesn’t allow us to go as in depth in some areas as we would like,” Ethier says.

The national survey, for example, does not ask about oral sex, which carries the risk of spreading sexually transmitted infections. As for “sexual intercourse,” Ethier says, “We try to use a term that we know young people understand, realizing that it may not encompass all the ways young people would define sex.”

IS LESS TEEN SEX GOOD NEWS?

Beyond semantics, there are a multitude of theories on why the reported rates of high school sex have steadily declined — and what it might say about American society.

“I imagine some parents are rejoicing and some are concerned, and I think there is probably good cause for both,” says Sharon Hoover, co-director of the National Center for School Mental Health at the University of Maryland. Health officials like to see trends that result in fewer teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

“But what we don’t know is what this means for the trajectory of young people,” Hoover says.

This year’s decrease, the sharpest drop ever recorded, clearly had a lot to do with the pandemic, which kept kids isolated, cut off from friends and immersed in social media. Even when life started returning to normal, many kids felt uncomfortable with face-to-face interaction and found their skills in verbal communication had declined, Hoover said.

The survey was conducted in the fall of 2021, just as many K-12 students returned to in-person classrooms after a year of online school.

Several teens interviewed said that when schools reopened, they returned with intense social anxiety compounded by fears of catching COVID. That added a new layer to pre-pandemic concerns about sexual relations like getting pregnant or catching STIs.

“I remember thinking, ‘What if I get sick? What if I get a disease? What if I don’t have the people skills for this?’” said Kay, the 18-year-old from Michigan. “All those ‘what ifs’ definitely affected my personal relationships, and how I interacted with strangers or personal partners.”

Another fear is the prying eyes of parents, says college student Abby Tow, who wonders if helicopter parenting has played a role in what she calls the “baby-fication of our generation.” A senior at the University of Oklahoma, Tow knows students in college whose parents monitor their whereabouts using tracking apps.

“Parents would get push notifications when their students left dorms and returned home to dorms,” says Tow, 22, majoring in social work and gender studies.

Tow also notices a “general sense of disillusionment” in her generation. She cites statistics that fewer teenagers today are getting driver’s licenses. “I think,” she says, “there is a correlation between students being able to drive and students having sex.”

Another cause for declining sex rates could be easy access to online porn, experts say. By the age of 17, three-quarters of teenagers have viewed pornography online, with the average age of first exposure at 12, according to a report earlier this year by Common Sense Media, a nonprofit child advocacy group.

“Porn is becoming sex ed for young people,” says Justine Fonte, a New York-based sex education teacher. She says pornography shapes and skews adolescent ideas about sexual acts, power and intimacy. “You can rewind, fast forward, play as much as you want. It doesn’t require you to think about how the person is feeling.”

IS THERE AN EVOLVING DEFINITION OF CONSENT?

Several experts said they hoped the decline could be partly attributed to a broader understanding of consent and an increase in “comprehensive” sex education being taught in many schools, which has become a target in ongoing culture wars.

Unlike abstinence-only programs, the lessons include discussion on understanding healthy relationships, gender identity, sexual orientation and preventing unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Contrary to what critics think, she said, young people are more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity if they have access to sex education.

Some schools and organizations supplement sex education with peer counseling, where teens are trained to speak to each other about relationships and other topics that young people might feel uncomfortable raising with adults.

Annika, 14, is a peer ambassador trained by Planned Parenthood and a high school freshman in Southern California. She’s offered guidance to friends in toxic relationships and worries about the ubiquity of porn among her peers, especially male friends. It’s clear to her that the pandemic stunted sex lives.

The CDC’s 2023 survey, which is currently underway, will show if the decline was temporary. Annika suspects it will show a spike. In her school, at least, students seem to be making up for lost time.

“People lost those two years so they’re craving it more,” she said. She has often been in a school bathroom where couples in stalls next to her are engaged in sexual activities.

Again, the definition of sex? “Any sexual act,” Annika says. “And sexual intercourse is one type of act.”

To get a truly accurate reading of teen sexuality, the evolution of language needs to be taken into account, says Dr. John Santelli, a Columbia University professor who specializes in adolescent sexuality.

“The word intercourse used to have another meaning,” he points out. “Intercourse used to just mean talking.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Young people are more likely to accept gay couples

— And to identify as gay

A sign outside the House chamber at the Statehouse in Indianapolis on Monday.

By

As it does regularly, Gallup asked Americans last year if they identified as straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. About 7 percent of Americans said they identified as one of the latter four categories, essentially the same percentage as identified that way in 2021.

There was an interesting divide, though. When Gallup broke out responses by age, it found that younger Americans were much more likely to identify as LGBT (the Gallup poll excluded “queer,” so no “Q”) than older ones. Only about 2 percent of those in the Silent Generation (born during or before World War II) identified as LGBT. By contrast, about 20 percent of Gen Z (should be known as Lockdowners) chose one of the LGBT options.

This phenomenon is not new. The divide between older and younger Americans on self-identification has been a subject of debate for some time and is often cited in rhetoric targeting the perceived liberalizing effect of education and culture. As Florida considered legislation passed last year that limited discussion of same-sex relationships in schools, the dangerous idea that kids were being actively encouraged to be gay became prevalent in right-wing rhetoric.

There is a simpler explanation, one that grants adults the agency of their choices. Decades of hostility to same-sex relationships loosened in recent years, and younger Americans grew up in a country that was less hostile to gay relationships than it used to be. And, therefore, they’re more comfortable expressing their sexual identities openly.

We can see the trend in acceptance of same-sex relationships in the General Social Survey (GSS), a national poll fielded every two years. (The 2020 survey was postponed to 2021 because of the pandemic.) Since the early 1970s, respondents have been asked how they view sexual relations between members of the same sex. After rising slightly in the 1980s — no doubt influenced in part by the AIDS epidemic — there has been a steady decline in the percentage of Americans who say same-sex relationships are always wrong. Importantly, that decline has been seen in every generational group, even those who haven’t attended elementary school in half a century.

We only have good data for members of Gen Z and younger groups in the past two GSS polls. Since only a relatively small group of members of that generation were surveyed in 2018, there’s a greater margin of error for that year. That probably helps explain the seeming jump in the 2021 figure.

Importantly, there is a correlation between the extent to which generations view same-sex relationships as always wrong and the extent to which members identify as LGBT in Gallup’s data. Gen Z is least likely to view those relationships as wrong (the dot farthest to the left on the graph below) and most likely to identify that way (highest). (The graph also indicates where the Gen Z dot would be using the 2018 GSS data. It’s visible as a light red dot behind the “G” in the label for the vertical axis.)

In the abstract, this could be seen as evidence in favor of the idea that young people were being trained to view LGBTQ relationships as acceptable. But this does not account for the downward shift in opposition to same-sex relationships among members of other generations.

It also ignores other lessons from American history. In 2015, The Washington Post presented this graph, showing how identification of children as left-handed rose during the 20th century and then plateaued at about 1 in 8 kids.

Kids weren’t being groomed to be lefties. Quite the opposite: When my mother was young, she was told to learn to write with her right hand. Over time, that idea fell out of favor and lefties could simply be lefties. The percentage of the population that is left-handed stabilized.

Perhaps what’s happening with LGBTQ identification is analogous. Perhaps the change isn’t that kids are being encouraged to be gay when they aren’t; perhaps it’s that they feel free to identify that way if they are — a freedom older Americans didn’t enjoy. A freedom some still see an unacceptable for themselves or in their peer groups.

Maybe what Gallup is doing, then, is simply more accurately measuring reality.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Putting Gay Men Back Into History

— In the late nineteenth century, historian John Addington Symonds fought back against his colleagues’ refusal to acknowledge historical same-sex relationships.

John Addington Symonds, 1889

By Livia Gershon

In many times and places, people who would fall under today’s LGBTQ+ umbrella have grown up with no framework to understand their identities. As historian Emily Rutherford writes, that was true for Victorian scholar John Addington. But, thanks to Addington’s work, many men who followed him had new ways to put their sexuality in context.

As a student in 1850s Britain, Symonds read Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus, encountering paiderastia—the social and erotic relationship between older and younger Athenian men. He later wrote that the concept was “the revelation I had been waiting for”—and something that he literally had no words to describe in his native language. He settled for a Greek phrase meaning roughly “the love of impossible things.”

But Rutherford writes that Symonds soon found his reading of the Greeks wasn’t universal. For example, one of his mentors, Benjamin Jowett of Oxford, dismissed Plato’s and Socrates’s descriptions of ennobling love between men as “a figure of speech.”

Symonds pushed back, arguing that historical accounts of same-sex relationships could provide guidance to men of his own time. His 1873 essay “A Problem in Greek Ethics” described love and sex between men in ancient Greece as well as different ethical structures governing same-sex relationships in other times and cultures. He was interested in a distinction between “common” and “heavenly” loves made by an Athenian named Pausanias in the Symposium. In his own culture, Symonds argued, the denial of public recognition for same-sex love reduced homosexuality to mere sexual gratification.

In 1878, a move to the Swiss Alps put Symonds in contact with a growing body of sexological literature published in German, much of which was unavailable in Britain due to obscenity laws. This research demonstrated the prevalence of men who had romantic and sexual relationships with other men in the present day. Toward the end of his life, he collaborated with doctor and sex researcher Havelock Ellis on a book that would eventually be published as Sexual Inversion.

But, unlike Ellis, Symonds viewed same-sex love as something that transcended unusual neurology. Rutherford writes that he sought to understand “how homoerotic love might be part of a wider, chivalric ideal.” He spent much of his life obsessed with Walt Whitman’s poems about comradeship—though Whitman, who had no concept of sexual orientation as a fixed identity, disavowed his interpretations of the poetry.

Rutherford notes that Symonds was married to a woman for much of his life, and his sexual encounters with other men were “fraught with class inequality and exploitation.” Yet he provided a new vocabulary for other men to talk about their intimate relationships. Oscar Wilde read Symonds with fascination and is said to have explained his love for Alfred Douglas with references to Plato, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare apparently cribbed from his work. E. M. Forster also wrote that reading Symonds helped him recognize his own homosexuality reflected in men from other times and cultures. Symonds’s work helped set the stage for a new flourishing of self-identified gay men in the twentieth century.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Why do hardly any straight men write about sex and dating?

— Men do think about matters of the heart, but writing about it publicly could be seen as undignified

‘There’s a sense of reading tea leaves about dating men, but maybe men are just less interested in reading those tea leaves.’

By

For every date a heterosexual woman goes on there is, for better or worse, a man there. But while women produce a wide and varied literature about this experience, from dating columns to films, there is hardly any personal writing by straight men about their sex, dating and relationship lives at all. There’s Karl Ove Knausgård. But you could list women writing in this genre for hours. Nora Ephron, Anaïs Nin, bell hooks, Elizabeth Gilbert, Dolly Alderton, Candace Bushnell, and so on.

Men date. Men fall in love. So where is the writing from men about these experiences? There are a few basic dating and sex advice columns aimed at straight men. Rhys Thomas writes Hey Man for Vice, Justin Myers wrote one at GQ for a while. Perhaps this is the masculine mode: anonymously ask a question, get a straight answer. Elsewhere, it feels like affairs of the heart are snuck into writing directed at straight men like vegetables into a child’s dinner. A recent New York Times article about the podcaster Scott Galloway noted that he smuggled relationship content into advice about career paths. And of course, as so many young men are doing of late, you can dive headlong into the cesspit of woman hacking, care of professed misogynist Andrew Tate. But that isn’t exactly what I had in mind.

It may be that the only group of people gagging for a dating column by a straight man are the women who date them. I know that men have fascinating thoughts about their romantic lives, and I love talking to my straight male friends about it. Recently I’ve been talking to them about the difference between what a man “settling” and a woman “settling” might look like; someone’s theory that culture has massively overstated the degree to which straight men want to have sex; someone else’s that straight men are talking about a different experience when they use the term “heartbreak” than women are, and so on.

When I asked them why they think the straight man relationship writing genre doesn’t exist, they were unanimously of the view that it just wouldn’t work. “I would see a dating column by a straight dude as undignified,” one said. “If it’s going well, it comes off braggy and vulgar, and if it’s going poorly, stop whinging in print.” So maybe it’s not surprising that a lot of male writers wouldn’t touch this subject with a bargepole. “Paradoxically, the sort of men who have the insight and sensitivity to write well about that experience preclude themselves from doing it exactly because of the sensitivity and awareness that would make their writing insightful,” another friend argued.

There are reasons to do with the history of this particular literary form, as well. It may be that, for a number of fair reasons, women are allowed to denigrate men in print, but not the other way around. “I think some of the things I get away with saying about men would seem a bit gross from guys, because of the obvious power imbalance,” Annie Lord, British Vogue’s dating columnist, told me. Women can write about dating because on a heterosexual date, society generally accepts that women are the underdogs.

Men are, in fact, talking about their sex and dating problems, but they’re not doing it in the media under their names. It’s happening anonymously on places like Reddit. A lot of this stuff is toxic garbage, yes, but plenty of it isn’t. The question may be more why no man has stepped forward to do this under his own name, in public.

Do I think a trailblazing men’s dating column is going to suddenly solve the so-called crisis in male emotional communication? No. And I confess to feeling a bit sorry for straight men in this regard. I love the way women talk freely about this stuff. But not even an imagined – and it seems pretty impossible – golden age of personal writing by men is going to force straight guys into hand-holding, tear-shedding summits with their friends when the truth seems to be that, whether for societal or biological or whatever reasons, they don’t want to.

Would many straight men even read this fabled column? Again, I asked some friends. “I probably wouldn’t be interested in reading a column by some dude cos I’d just think, well, that’s him I guess. I can’t imagine finding it useful or applying it to me in any way.”

Which made me question, what do women get out of reading dating and relationship columns? I like reading dating columns mostly because I’m nosy. But I do also think there’s something about reading other women’s experiences out there in the trenches of dating men that can feel reassuring, like talking in the “no boys allowed” treehouse. And it’s nice to go to the treehouse, so it’s sad to me that boys don’t have one of their own. Maybe some brave man will find a way to build it.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Pompeii’s House of the Vettii reopens

— A reminder that Roman sexuality was far more complex than simply gay or straight

The atrium of the House of the Vettii, Pompeii.

By

As Pompeii’s House of the Vettii finally reopens after a long process of restoration, news outlets appear to be struggling with how to report on the Roman sex cultures so well recorded in the ruins of the city.

The Metro opened with the headline “Lavish Pompeii home that doubled as a brothel has some interesting wall art”, while the Guardian highlighted the fresco of Priapus, the god of fertility (depicted weighing his oversized penis on a scale with bags of coins) as well as the erotic frescoes found next to the kitchen.

The Daily Mail, on the other hand – and arguably surprisingly – said nothing about the explicit frescoes and instead centred its story on the house’s “historic hallmarks of interior design”.

As a scholar who researches modern and contemporary visual cultures of sexuality, I was struck by how the heavy presence of sexual imagery in the ruins of Pompeii seems to confound those writing about it for a general audience.

Rethinking Roman sexuality

As a gay man and a researcher on sexuality, I am all too familiar with the ways modern gay men look to ancient Rome in search of evidence that there have always been people like us.

It is now clear among the research community that such straightforward readings of homosexuality in classical history are flawed. That is because same-sex relations among Romans were lived and thought about in very different ways from our own.

Roman sexuality was not framed in terms of the gender of partners but in terms of power. The gender of a free man’s sexual partner was less relevant than their social position.

A room with walls coloured in colourful frescos of nude men and women.
Frescoes from the House of the Vettii.Courtesy of the Archaeological Park of Pompeii

Socially acceptable Roman sexuality was about power, power was about masculinity – and Roman patriarchal sex cultures were assertions of both. An adult free man could have sex as the penetrating partner with anyone of a lower social status – including women or slaves and sex workers of both genders.

Despite this, I understand how politically important and strategic it was for the early homosexual movement to invent its own myth of origin and to populate history with figures that had been – they thought – just like us.

The flip side of modern notions of homosexuality being read into Roman history, is the way in which the widespread presence of sex in ancient Roman (including in the graffiti and visual culture preserved in Pompeii) has been disavowed or – at least – purified by mainstream modern culture.

Pornography in Pompeii

This phenomenon started when sexually explicit artefacts were first discovered in Pompeii, propelling archaeologists to preserve them due to their historical value, but to keep them hidden from the general public in “secret museums” on account of their obscene content.

Indeed, the coinage of the word “pornography” was a result of the archival need to classify those Roman artefacts. The term “pornographers” was first used to designate the creators of such Roman images in Karl Otfried Müller’s Handbook of Archaeology of Art (Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst), from 1830.

The god Priapus is shown wearing a tunic that doesn't contain his cartoonishly large penis.
A fresco of Priapus in the House of the Vettii showing the god’s oversized penis.

The news coverage around the reopening of the House of the Vettii is one such example of mainstream modern culture sanitising Roman history.

When focusing on the fresco of Priapus, for instance, news outlets are quick to claim that the god’s oversized penis was merely a metaphor for the wealth accumulated by the men who owned the house. The pair had made their fortune selling wine after being freed from slavery.

This reading of the fresco, while not necessarily incorrect, overlooks the more complex – and for that reason, more interesting – role of phallic imagery in Roman culture.

As classicist Craig Williams writes, the images of a hyper-endowed, hyper-masculine Priapus that were widespread in Roman culture functioned not only as a source of identification but also as an object of desire for Roman men – if not to be penetrated by the large phallus, then at least to wish it was their own.

Priapus, with his large manhood and unquenchable desire to dominate others through penetration was, Williams tells us: “Something like the patron saint or mascot of Roman machismo.”

What’s missing from the story?

News coverage of the erotic frescoes found in a smaller room of the house has been similarly too straight forward in claiming them as evidence that that room was used for sex work.

While some scholars have certainly argued that perspective, others believe it unlikely. Some academics suggest that the erotic frescoes in that room (which probably belonged to the house’s cook) had more likely been commissioned as a gift to the Vettii’s favourite slave and very much fit the wider aesthetic of quirky excess that marks the house as a whole.

A light beautiful courtyard surrounded by columns.
A courtyard in the House of the Vettii.Courtesy of the Archaeological Park of Pompeii

In a culture where sex was not taboo but instead promoted as a sign of power, wealth and culture, it is fair to suggest that erotic images wouldn’t just belong in brothels. Sex was everywhere in Rome, including in literary and visual arts.

When reading the recent news stories, I could not help but think that their interpretations, while not wholly wrong, were too skewed into presenting the explicit frescoes as either metaphors for something more noble, or as something that was restricted to a specific site of Roman life – the brothel.

Perhaps these readings are privileged over others because we’re reluctant to accept that sex in ancient Roman culture – a culture we so often mythologise as our “origin” – was performed in ways that we are uncomfortable with.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Same-Sex Couples Deal With Stress Better Than Different-Sex Couples

— Not only that, same-sex marriages tend to be slightly happier than different-sex marriages.

Understanding the dynamics of same-sex relationships could hold some benefits for all couples dealing with martial problems.

By Tom Hale

Same-sex married couples often cope with stress in a healthier and more collaborative way than different-sex couples, according to a new study. The researchers argue that this is perhaps because homosexual couples face unique problems, including stigma, and may receive less support from wider family and traditional institutions compared to heterosexual couples.

To reach these findings, sociologists from the University of Texas at Austin analyzed survey responses of 419 middle-aged couples in both same- and different-sex marriages living in Massachusetts.

The researchers studied their relationships in terms of dyadic coping, the processes through which couples manage stress together through joint problem-solving, communicating empathy, expressing solidarity, and redistributing responsibilities in response to the problem. They also measured negative dyadic coping, in which a spouse reacts ambivalently or even hostilely in response to the other’s stress.

The study notes that women are generally more engaged in dyadic coping compared to men in heterosexual relationships. However, when it came to same-sex partnerships, both men and women were found to be more likely to work together to cope with stress, compared to their counterparts in different-sex marriages.

“While women married to women receive the most positive coping support from their partners, women married to men receive the most negative dyadic coping. Unlike men and women in same-sex marriages, men and women in different-sex marriages are less likely to work toward coping with stress together,” the study concludes. 

Furthermore, same-sex marriages were reported to have slightly higher marital quality than same-sex ones, just as previous research has hinted.

“This research shows that while there are some gender differences in dyadic coping efforts, the effects of supportive and collaborative dyadic coping as well as of negative dyadic coping on marital quality are the same for all couples,” Yiwen Wang, lead study author and a PhD candidate in UT Austin’s Department of Sociology, said in a statement.

“Our findings also emphasize the importance of coping as a couple for marital quality across different relationship contexts, which can be an avenue through which couples work together to strengthen relationship well-being,” added Wang.

The researchers explain that not nearly the same quantity of research into dyadic coping has been carried out on same-sex relationships. However, understanding the dynamics of these relationships could hold some real benefits for all couples dealing with problems.

“Same-sex couples face unique stressors related to discrimination and stigma. Coping as a couple may be especially important for them as they do not receive as much support from extended family, friends, or institutions as different-sex couples do,” added Debra Umberson, a professor of sociology at UT Austin.

“Including same-sex spouses and looking at how they work with each other to manage stress as compared to different-sex spouses can help us better understand the ways in which gender dynamics unfold in marriages,” Umberson said.

The new study was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

The science of sexual orientation

— Can genes explain sexuality? Should we even try to know?

By Katie MacBride

There’s nothing new about being gay, but that hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to understand it.

Over the past two decades, many researchers have become focused on the notion of a “gay gene” — biological proof that one was “born this way.”

It makes sense: Our genes can influence who we are, and psychologists contend sexual orientation is not a conscious choice. It theoretically stands to reason there might be genetic underpinnings to who we become sexually attracted to.

But more recent research has both confirmed and debunked the notion of a genetic basis for sexual orientation. Instead of just one gene (or one marker on one gene) that determines sexual orientation, there are many genes with markers related to attraction to the same sex.

For example, in 2019, the researchers studying those markers and same-sex attraction told Inverse: “This finding suggests that on a genetic level, there is no single dimension from opposite-sex to same-sex preference.”

But that’s just part of the story.

Two new studies published Monday, one in Nature Human Behavior and the other in Scientific Reports, further illuminate the complexities of sexual orientation and how fraught scientific study of the subject is. They also highlight three key factors:

  1. Our own sexual orientation may be much more fluid than we thought.
  2. The same cluster of genes that may be associated with same-sex sexual behavior may confer some evolutionary advantage.
  3. There are inherent dangers in focusing on genetics in relation to sexual orientation.

Genes and sexual behavior — First author Brendan Zietsch, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Queensland in Australia, and colleagues attempted to discover why the genes associated with same-sex sexual behavior continue to flourish. Their study was published in Nature Human Behavior.

In a statement, the study authors report:

“Because [same-sex sexual behavior] SSB confers no immediately obvious direct reproductive or survival benefit and can divert mating effort away from reproductive opportunities, its widespread occurrence across the animal kingdom and human cultures raise questions for evolutionary biology.”

Using information from the UK Biobank, and questionnaire responses about sexual behavior from hundreds of thousands of individuals, the study team analyzed the genome of 477,522 people in the United Kingdom and the United States who had only had same-sex interactions.

They compared that data set to the genome of 358,426 people in the same countries who had only had opposite-sex encounters.

The team found the genes linked to same-sex behavior are also found in straight people. This gene profile across groups is associated with having more sexual partners.

Gay pride flag
A man waves an LGBTQ flag in front of the Bosnian parliament.

The authors posit that the number of opposite-sex sexual partners could be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, as it could lead to more children.

In turn, they argue their results help explain why same-sex sexual behavior has persisted throughout the evolution of the human species: These genetic effects may have been favored by evolution as they are associated with more children.

Ultimately and critically, the authors claim, the genes may less have to do with sexual preference and more to do with sexual openness/willingness.

The ethical debate — Other scientists caution against extrapolating information about sexual preference or behavior from genes.

In a commentary piece published alongside the study, ethicists Julian Savulescu, Brian D. Earp, and Udo Schuklenk distill the debate around whether or not this kind of research will lead to societal abuse.

They write:

“One can imagine technologically advanced repressive regimes where homosexuality is outlawed requiring genetic testing of embryos and foetuses, destroying those disposed to SSB, or testing children early in life for their propensities. Others will respond that the world (or at least some parts of it) has become more accepting of homosexuality, so perhaps these worries are overblown.”

What matters, they argue, is creating a society in which this kind of genetic research can’t be abused to further harm anyone, much less already marginalized groups.

They write: “Genes shape, limit, and provide opportunities for who we are and who we can be, both as individuals and as members of communities. To prepare for further research into polygenic behavioral traits including SSB, we must reshape society.”

Ilan Dar-Nimrod, a researcher and professor at The University of Sydney’s School of Psychology, tells Inverse “genes are taking oversize agency” in the minds of sexual behavior researchers.

“Genes code for properties,” he explains. “And although they can predict a lot of things, many people have this one-to-one view: if you have the gene, you’re going to be that and you can’t change it.”

That’s simply not in line with what we know about the science of genetics, he says.

On Monday, Dar-Nimrod and his colleagues also published a study looking at sexual preferences, this one in Scientific Reports. This study’s results support his assertion about preferences being more malleable than genes would suggest.

Sexuality is a spectrum

In their study, Dar-Dimrod and colleagues asked 420 cisgender people ranging in age from 18 to 83 to read literature. The study participants identified as exclusively heterosexual.

“We’ve just changed how they look at it.”

One group read literature about sexual preferences as a fluid spectrum. For example, one of the articles discussed gradations of sexual attraction towards men and women and noted that people can fall anywhere along the continuum. Another article explained that sexual orientation can change over time, shifting throughout one’s life instead of being fixed. The control group read unrelated articles.

After reading the literature about sexual fluidity:

  • Twenty-eight percent of the participants in the experimental group were more likely to identify as non-exclusively heterosexual.
  • Nineteen percent indicated they would be more likely to be willing to engage in same-sex sexual activities.

The rate of participants identifying as “non-exclusive heterosexual” more than quadrupled after the experiment.

In contrast, in the control group, only 8 percent of the participants identified as “non-exclusively heterosexual” after reading the literature unrelated to sexual preferences.

Dar-Nimrod says there were several results that surprised him:

  • How many people in the experimental group identified as “non-exclusively heterosexual” following the experiment
  • People actually expressed a willingness to engage in same-sex activities following the experiment
  • That even when balanced with literature refuting the idea of sexual preference as a spectrum — one of the articles argued that sexual orientation is indeed fixed — participants still gave more credence to the literature that discussed a sexual spectrum

Dar-Nimord doesn’t believe the literature he had the experimental group read actually changed who the participants were attracted to.

“We haven’t changed the underlying orientation,” he says. “We’ve just changed how they look at it.”

While our genes may predispose us to certain traits and conditions, when it comes to behavior, our society, environment, and relationships all play a huge role in how we behave.

“Do we really need to suggest that [queer people] were born with a certain gene to accept them and their relationships with other consenting adults?” Dar-Nimord says. “I don’t think so.”

Once we realize we’re not in fixed, black and white boxes, we have the freedom to explore the gray area to which most of us belong. At least, that’s what science really can show.

Nature Human Behavior abstract: Human same-sex sexual behaviour (SSB) is heritable, confers no immediately obvious direct reproductive or survival benefit and can divert mating effort from reproductive opportunities. This presents a Darwinian paradox: why has SSB been maintained despite apparent selection against it? We show that genetic effects associated with SSB may, in individuals who only engage in opposite-sex sexual behaviour (OSB individuals), confer a mating advantage. Using results from a recent genome-wide association study of SSB and a new genome-wide association study on number of opposite-sex sexual partners in 358,426 individuals, we show that, among OSB individuals, genetic effects associated with SSB are associated with having more opposite-sex sexual partners. Computer simulations suggest that such a mating advantage for alleles associated with SSB could help explain how it has been evolutionarily maintained. Caveats include the cultural specificity of our UK and US samples, the societal regulation of sexual behaviour in these populations, the difficulty of measuring mating success and the fact that measured variants capture a minority of the total genetic variation in the traits.

Scientific Reports abstract: We examined whether heterosexual individuals’ self‐reported sexual orientation could be influenced experimentally by manipulating their knowledge of the nature of sexual orientation. In Study 1 (180 university students, 66% female) participants read summaries describing evidence for sexual orientation existing on a continuum versus discrete categories or a control manipulation, and in Study 2 (460 participants in a nationally representative Qualtrics panel, 50% female) additionally read summaries describing sexual orientation as fluid versus stable across the life‐course. After reading summaries, participants answered various questions about their sexual orientation. In Study 1, political moderates and progressives (but not conservatives) who read the continuous manipulation subsequently reported being less exclusively heterosexual, and regardless of political alignment, participants reported less certainty about their sexual orientation, relative to controls. In Study 2, after exposure to fluid or continuous manipulations heterosexual participants were up to five times more likely than controls to rate themselves as non‐exclusively heterosexual. Additionally, those in the continuous condition reported less certainty about their sexual orientation and were more willing to engage in future same‐sex sexual experiences, than those in the control condition. These results suggest that non‐traditional theories of sexual orientation can lead heterosexuals to embrace less exclusive heterosexual orientations.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

The evolutionary paradox of homosexuality

Being gay no longer holds the stigma it once did, but in evolution, why does a non-reproductive trait persist?

By

In 1913 George Levick, an explorer, travelled to Antarctica. There, he found something so terrible that he requested his findings not be published. In case the correspondence was leaked or intercepted, he took the further precaution of writing key sections in ancient Greek: these were not letters to be read by the lower orders.

Levick had been studying penguins: birds whose monogamous lifestyle had so impressed the Victorians that they had been held up as models of probity and integrity.

But he had seen something on his trip to the bottom of the world that had caused him to question that assessment. “There seems,” he wrote with palpable shock, “to be no crime too low for these penguins.” Levick’s penguins, you see, were gay.

And if penguins can be homosexual, what was to say that that behaviour, far from being the perversion society presumed it was, was natural in humans too?

These days homosexuals, avian or otherwise, generally have an easier time of it. While we may have accepted that same sex attraction is natural, though, there is a far harder question: why is it natural?

We know that homosexuality is, at least in part, genetic. Studies show, for instance, that identical twins are more likely to be both homosexual than non-identical twins. So it is passed on by evolution. This is a problem, particularly so with men – who for obvious reasons find it harder to fake an interest in sex.

Imagine you had never heard of evolution, and someone described it to you. One of the most basic predictions you would surely make is that a trait that made people less likely to reproduce should die out. Male homosexuality, a trait that, at least among exclusive homosexuals, means people have no interest at all in the act of reproduction, should never have existed in the first place. And yet it does. How?

To answer that question, researchers have gone to a place where homosexuality itself does not exist, at least in the form we know it: Samoa. Here, in the South Pacific, there is a third gender called the Fa’afafine – a group born male who behave as women.

This is not the only place with third genders. There are the “Two-Spirit” people of Native America. There are the Khatoey ladyboys of Thailand. There are the Hijras of Pakistan. In 2004 a Hijra, Asha Devi, was elected mayor of Gorakhpur under the slogan “You’ve tried the men and tried the women. Now try something different”.

Hijra offer prayers on the occasion of Urs festival in Hooghly near Kolkata © Saikat Paul/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
Hijra offer prayers on the occasion of Urs festival in Hooghly near Kolkata

Paul Vasey, from the University of Lethbridge in Canada, believes that homosexuality as it manifests itself in most of today’s world is unusual. In more ancient cultures, he thinks you can see homosexuality as it was practised by our ancestors in deep time – as a “third gender”.

And in looking at these third genders – in particular the Fa’afafine – he believes we can find clues as to why this evolutionary paradox of male homosexuality persists.

What is interesting for Professor Vasey is that, firstly, there is no recognised gay identity in Samoa and that, secondly, the Fa’afafine occur at the same proportion as male homosexuals in the west. He believes there is a simple explanation for this.

“I’m gay,” says Professor Vasey. “But if I’d grown up in Samoa I wouldn’t look like this. I’d probably look like a really ugly Fa’afafine.”

Fa’afafine translates literally as “in the manner of a woman”. Boys who appear more feminised in their behaviour will often be classified as a Fa’afafine, and brought up as something between a woman and a man. There is also an analogue for masculinised girls – Fa’afatama.

The fact they also go on to sleep with men is not the only similarity between Fa’afafine and western gay men. “There’s all kinds of traits the two share in common. Both exhibit elevated childhood gender atypical behaviour, both exhibit elevated childhood cross sex wishes, both exhibit elevated childhood separation anxiety, both prefer female-typical occupations in adulthood.”

For Professor Vasey, it seems obvious that being Fa’afafine and being gay is the “same trait, expressed differently depending on the culture.” He even argues that the oddity is the West – that the way homosexuality manifests in Europe and North America may even be an expression of our repression rather than our freedom.

“The part of the brain that controls sexual partner preference, it’s the same for all of us,” he says. “It’s just that if you take that biological potential, put it in Samoa where society doesn’t flip out about male femininity, then feminine little boys grow up to be Fa’afafine. If you take that potential, put it in Canada, feminine boys learn pretty quickly they had better masculinise to survive.” This, he believes, is precisely what he ended up doing.

Whether the “third gender” really is the ancestral form of homosexuality, with the way it is practised in the West today an aberration, is a separate issue. That it can take such widely different forms, shows the impact society can have on sexuality. That its prevalence remains largely the same also shows the limits of such socialisation – that there is something else going on. But what?

Professor Vasey is one of the very few scientists in the world looking at this question, and he does so thanks to the Fa’afafine. There are two specific theories used to explain male homosexuality that he is interested in. The first could be termed the “benevolent uncle hypothesis”.

Alatina Ioelu does not remember not being a Fa’afafine. Yet he does remember not wanting to be one. “You don’t really come out,” he said. “You’re just that. In a way it’s good, in a way it’s not good. When you’re growing up as a kid you’re innocent of your actions, how you move or sound. You’re not aware you are doing something that doesn’t conform to the norms of how society considers boys.”

But he clearly didn’t, because his classmates began to call him a Fa’afafine. “And so you grow up being known as that. I wanted to distance myself from it, I didn’t want to be that.” He couldn’t, though, because he realised it was true. “In the end you’re like, ‘sh*t, that’s what I am.’”

It would be wrong to claim that the Fa’afafine are completely accepted in Samoa. There is a place for them, however, and always has been. “They walk around and nobody says, ‘Oh, that’s a Fa’afafine’. In my family we have a long line going back. I have a great uncle that’s a Fa’afafine, I have four second cousins, a first cousin…”

He realised that this itself was a paradox – all these Fa’afafine going back generations. “How the hell do we have Fa’afafine, and they don’t reproduce? How is it we are still around, when we don’t have children?”

He also realised that Professor Vasey may have the answer. Fa’afafine do not have biological children of their own. Conventionally, from the point Alatina realised who he was, he was taking himself out of the reproductive game. Or was he? Perhaps not entirely.

The benevolent uncle explanation is based on the idea that there is more than one way to pass on your genes. The best way to reproduce, in terms of percentage of genes passed on, is to clone yourself through asexual reproduction. Stick insects can do this. Humans, alas, can’t.

The most efficient method we have to perpetuate our genes is sexual reproduction – passing on half our DNA each time. It is not the only option, though. Your siblings, for instance, share half your genes, which means your nieces and nephews share a quarter. To an uncle each of those nieces and nephews is therefore, from a genetic point of view, worth half a child.

Tafi Toleafoa, a fa'afafine living in Alaska, USA, tends to her niece during a family gathering after church © Erik Hill/Anchorage Daily News/MCT via Getty Images
Tafi Toleafoa, a fa’afafine living in Alaska, USA, tends to her niece during a family gathering after church

What if simply having an extra man around, a benevolent uncle to provide for the extended family’s children, was enough to ensure more of those children survive to reproduce themselves? This could be where the Fa’afafine come in. Alatina says that there are clear and defined roles for them.

“They become almost like the caretakers of families. They are responsible for taking care of the elderly, parents, grandparents, even their siblings’ children. Because they are feminine they take up this motherly role in families.”

Having an extra hardworking adult without dependants is no minor advantage. Everyone has extra fish, extra firewood – and fuller bellies. It is not implausible that, particularly in difficult times, a childless Fa’afafine could ensure more nieces and nephews reach reproductive age. That is the idea behind the benevolent uncles hypothesis, that good uncling becomes a form of reproduction in itself.

To test the theory, Professor Vasey looks to see if the Fa’afafine are more avuncular – literally, uncle-like. He has found that, compared to single straight men or aunts, they are indeed more likely to want to look after their nieces and nephews. They take more interest in them, babysit more than straight men, buy more toys, tutor more and contribute more money to their education.

Of course, in order for a gay uncle to be useful you need to ensure he actually has nieces and nephews (and preferably a lot of them) to be useful for. There’s no point in being a good uncle with no one to look after. So it would be good for this theory if gay uncles were more likely to pop up in big families. Incredibly, they do.

One of the best-established and more intriguing results in homosexuality research is that the more elder brothers a man has, the greater his chances of being gay. The mechanism, only discovered this year, seems to involve each pregnancy leading the mother to develop antibodies against a protein involved in male foetal brain development.

The result is, as families get more likely to benefit from the services of a gay uncle, the chances of one appearing increases.

Problem solved? Not quite. In order for this to completely explain homosexuality, a lot of extra nieces and nephews would have to be born and survive – probably too many for the genetic mathematics to add up.

But Professor Vasey does not think the benevolent uncle theory needs to be a complete explanation. It can be one of many, and the other leading contender is the “sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis”, more snappily known as the “sexy sisters hypothesis”.

What if the genes for homosexuality persist because despite making non-reproductive (if avuncular) men, when they appear in women they produce excellent breeders? Again the Fa’afafine, and Samoa, have been his laboratory. Professor Vasey took 86 Fa’afafine, and 86 heterosexual Samoan men. He then looked at their grandmothers – who are easier to study than sisters, because all their breeding is already finished.

He found that the grandmothers of the Fa’afafine were indeed better breeders. The theory is simple. By passing on their genes these grandmothers might end up with the occasional grandson who wears dresses and doesn’t reproduce (though always remembers his nieces’ and nephews’ birthdays). But they themselves, thanks to the very same genes, were also better at reproducing – so made enough other grandchildren to make up for it. There is a problem, though, given the way the theory was originally framed. Somehow, the “sexy grandmothers’ hypothesis” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Why Some Straight Men Sleep With Other Men

By

Sexual identities and sexual behaviors don’t always match because sexuality is multidimensional. Many people recognize sexual fluidity, and some even identify as “mostly straight.”

Fewer people know that some men and women have same-sex encounters, yet nonetheless perceive themselves as exclusively straight. And these people are not necessarily “closeted” gays, lesbians, or bisexuals.

When a closeted gay or bisexual man has sex with another man, he views that sex as reflecting his secret identity. He is not open about that identity, likely because he fears discrimination. When a straight man has sex with another man, however, he views himself as straight despite his sex with men.

In my book, Still Straight: Sexual Flexibility among White Men in Rural America, I investigate why some men who identify as straight have sex with other men. Large nationally representative surveys show that hundreds of thousands of straight American men — at least — have had sex with two or more other men. This finding represents a disconnect between identity and behavior, and researchers from around the world – in the United States, Australia, and the U.K. – have studied this topic.

It involves two related but separate issues: first, why men identify as straight if they have sex with other men, and second, why straight men would have sex with other men in the first place.

Skirting around cheating

As part of my research, I spoke with 60 straight men who have sex with other men and specifically looked at men in rural areas and small towns. The majority of men I interviewed were primarily attracted to women, not men. So why would they have sex with other men?

My findings revealed several reasons as to why straight men have sex with other men. Several men explained that their marriages did not have as much sex as they wanted, and while they wanted to remain married, they also wanted to have more sex. Extramarital sex with men, to them, helped relieve their sexual needs without threatening their marriages.

Tom, a 59-year-old from Washington, explained: “I kind of think of it as I’m married to a nun.” He continued: “For me, being romantic and emotional is more cheating than just having sex.” And Ryan, a 60-year-old from Illinois, felt similarly. He said: “Even when I have an encounter now, I’m not cheating on her. I wouldn’t give up her for that.”

These men felt as though extramarital sex with women would negatively affect their marriages, whereas extramarital sex with men was not as much of an issue. Most men had not told their wives about their extramarital sex, however.

'Mostly Straight' Guy Falls for Roommate During Quarantine

Identities reflect sexual and nonsexual aspects of life

In order to answer why men would identify as straight despite having sex with other men, it’s important to know that sexual identities indicate how people perceive the sexual and nonsexual aspects of their lives. Connor, a 43-year-old from Oregon, noted:

“I think there’s a definite disconnect between gay and homosexual. There’s the homosexual community, which isn’t a community, there’s the homosexual proclivity, and then the gay community. It’s like you can be an athlete without being a jock. And you can be homosexual without being gay, or into all of it. It just becomes so politically charged now.”

The men I talked to identified as straight because they felt that this identity best reflected their romantic relationships with women, their connections to heterosexual communities or the way they understood their masculinity. Straight identification also, of course, meant that they avoided discrimination. They felt that sex with men was irrelevant to their identities given every other part of their lives.

Living in small towns and in more rural settings also shaped how the men perceived themselves. Larry, 37, from Wyoming, explained: “I would say straight because that best suits our cultural norms around here.” Most of the men I talked to were happy with their lives and identities, and they did not want to identify as gay or bisexual — not when people asked them, and not to themselves.

It may come as a surprise, but internalized homophobia was not a major reason the men I spoke to identified as straight. Most supported equal legal rights for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. Other research also shows that, on average, straight men who have sex with men are not any more homophobic than other straight men. Additionally, while most men knew bisexuality is a valid identity, they felt that bisexual did not describe their identity because they were only romantically interested in women.

Many factors beyond sexual attractions or behaviors shape sexual identification, including social contexts, romantic relationships, and beliefs about masculinity and femininity, among others. Straight men who have sex with other men are not necessarily closeted, because they do genuinely see themselves as heterosexual.

Sexual encounters with men simply do not affect how they perceive their identity.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

How to deal with nerves the first time you have same-sex sex

By

Okay, so you’re pondering having sex with someone of the same gender for the first time.

Feeling nervous? Don’t panic – that’s totally normal.

‘Same-sex sex can feel daunting even if you’ve had plenty of “straight” sex before,’ sex and relationships expert Annabelle Knight tells Metro.co.uk. ‘The reason it feels so different is because… it is!

‘The idea of first time same-sex can feel scary because it’s an entirely new experience. Nerves are part and parcel of pushing yourself out of your usual space and into something new.’

There’s a lot of fear when trying anything new (including queer sex) that you’ll get stuff wrong, that you’ll be rubbish, that it’ll be embarrassing.

It’s all perfectly natural, but when the nerves are overwhelming, it’s time to tackle them.

So, how do we do that?

Reframe anxiety as excitement

You’re about to do something new – what if instead of viewing that as a scary thing, you see it as exciting?

‘Try to focus on the positives. As with lots of new experiences things can seem daunting, however if you re-package nerves as excitement then you’ll be able to build what’s known as “positive anticipation”, which will help you to really get the most out of the experience as a whole,’ Annabelle suggests.

Reframe anxiety as excitement

Talk about it

You don’t need to pretend to be totally cool or act like you know what you’re doing. It’s actually pretty endearing to openly say that you’re a touch nervous.

‘We can combat nerves by opening up communication with our partner, or if you feel able to, telling them that you might be feeling a bit nervous,’ says Lelo’s sex and relationships expert Kate Moyle.

Redefine sex

You might still be holding on to a traditional definition of sex, viewing it only as penis in vagina penetration.

The reality is that sex can encompass all sorts of joyous things – stroking, licking, caressing…

And the thing is, if you’ve been in ‘straight’ sex setups before, you’ve likely played with all of these bits of sex. Remembering that makes same-sex sex feel a lot less scary.

‘Appreciate that there’s more to sex than penetration alone,’ Annabelle says. ‘This means that everything from kissing, cuddling and sensual massage can fall under the banner of sex.

‘Great sex is how you define it so don’t feel constrained by the idea that penetration = proper sex.’

Be playful

Hey, this is supposed to be fun.

‘Even if we haven’t had a sexual experience with someone of the same gender before, bodies are still sensual and sensitive – be creative and playful with your touch, which will help to build up arousal and desire,’ suggests Kate.

Keep communication open

Bring in sex toys

Sex toys are not a necessity, but they can be a bonus – and can definitely help to relieve the pressure of delivering an orgasm with your hands and genitals alone.

Don’t feel pressured to orgasm every time

Not climaxing doesn’t mean you’ve ‘failed’. It’s the journey that counts, and every bit of sex can be a glorious experience – not just the orgasm.

Keep the communication going

‘Vocalise what you are feeling using positive encouragement,’ recommends Kate, ‘so letting them know what feel’s good for you.’

Embrace uncertainty

Annabelle adds: ‘To get the most out of your first same-sex experience make sure you’re in the right head space.

‘You don’t need to have everything figured out, nor do you need to put a label on yourself – instead embrace the fact that you’re ready to experiment and open yourself up to a different type of connection.’

Top tips for great first-time same-sex sex

Trim your nails

‘Long fingernails look great but can be a bit of a pain in the clit when it comes to same-sex experiences,’ notes Annabelle.

Lube

One thing Annabelle recommends for great same-sex sex? ‘Lube, lube, and more lube!’

‘Anal doesn’t just happen, she notes. ‘The anus isn’t self-lubricating and needs a lot of help in that department. A good quality water based lube is a fabulous all-rounder. It’s skin safe, toy safe, and condom safe too.’

Lube is great for vaginas, too, particularly if the woman you’re dating is going through menopause or has given birth (both of which can cause hormones to drop and dryness to occur).

Wetter is better, so feel free to lube liberally.

Stay safe

Pregnancy won’t be a risk during same-sex sex, but make sure you’re still protecting yourself from STIs. Condoms, dental dams – all necessary.

Oh, and ‘if you’re sharing sex toys make sure you give them a clean between uses,’ says Annabelle.

Explore different turn-on spots

‘For women and vulva owners the clitoris is the source of most sensitivity and sexual pleasure, and most women report orgasming via direct clitoral stimulation,’ Kate tells us. ‘But having said that, take your time to explore sensually and not just focusing on the areas of the body commonly associated with sex.

‘This build up gives the body a chance to sexually warm up and become aroused which is key to pleasure.’

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

What Is Sexual Fluidity?

No matter where you fall on the sexuality spectrum, your feelings are valid.

By Jessica Toscano

Sexual fluidity is an aspect of sexuality that is about flexibility in your sexual preferences. It refers to the ability for a person’s sexual identity, attraction, or behavior to change depending on particular situations. Whether it’s for the short term or long term, people might experience changes in how they sexually identify, who they are attracted to, or what type of sexual partners they have.1

Sexual fluidity means that your sexuality can be ever-changing. Even if your sexuality has stayed pretty constant, it might change once or several times throughout your adolescence and adulthood.

Sexual fluidity can mean different things for different people.

For example, someone who is lesbian might consider themselves sexually fluid if they start experiencing attraction to someone who is non-binary. People who have heterosexual sexual encounters could be sexually fluid if they have an occasional desire for the same sex. Someone who is attracted to both men and women might eventually feel attraction to people of any gender.1

Changes in sexual attraction, identity, or behavior can be unexpected. The changes can be temporary or lasting.

Sexual fluidity doesn’t mean someone is confused or in denial about their sexual orientation, which is who you are attracted to sexually. Being sexually fluid is also not the same as being bisexual, a sexual orientation when you are consistently attracted to more than one gender.1

Unlike sexual orientation, which suggests that sexuality falls under one fixed category, sexual fluidity shows that your sexual thoughts, feelings, and attractions can be continuously evolving.2 Attraction isn’t always confined to one label, which is why some people might prefer the label of sexually fluid. And just because people can be sexual fluid doesn’t mean that sexual orientation doesn’t exist. Sexual fluidity simply highlights that your sexual orientation may not rigidly predict each and every desire you’ll have in your life.1

That said, it could be possible, for example, for a woman to identify as straight and still wonder how to know if she’s a lesbian due to a sporadic attraction to the same gender. Labels can definitely help you identify who you are based on a series of emotional, romantic, and sexual patterns, but they can’t predict each and every desire you will have over your lifespan, which is where sexual fluidity comes into play.

Research has shown that anywhere between less than 1% to 66% of people whose gender aligns with their sex at birth (cisgender) are sexually fluid. One study showed that, compared to cisgender men and women, trans men are even more likely to show sexual fluidity.3

Although sexual fluidity can affect someone of any sex or gender, research has suggested that more women than men are sexually fluid. For example, a small study 2013 study of 199 young LGBTQ+ adults showed that 64% of women and 52% of men identified as sexually fluid.4 However, newer research seems to suggest that women might not actually have higher rates of sexual fluidity after all.1

Someone can experience sexual fluidity at any point in their life. This might be because you meet someone new or learn about a sexual identity with which you more closely identify. But research does suggest that substantial changes in one’s attraction to others seem to be common in late adolescence to the early 20s as well as from the early 20s to the late 20s.5

Overall, there’s been an increase in the percentage of Americans who identify as LGBTQ+. Researchers suggest this rise could be from political changes, like the legalization of same-sex marriage, as well as social changes, like the destigmatization of sexual minorities.6

Since sexuality is a spectrum and where you fall on it can be different throughout your life, there is no sure way to know exactly if where you are now on the spectrum will be where you stay at all times. But that doesn’t mean you can’t still regularly check in with yourself to acknowledge your feelings.

Here are some signs you might be sexually fluid:1

  • You feel a nonexclusive attraction to different genders. Unlike the constant attraction to more than one gender that comes with bisexuality, sexual fluidity means you sporadically feel attracted to different genders, sometimes at the same time and sometimes not. Your change in attraction can happen several times throughout your life or it can happen only once.
  • Your sexual attractions change over time. If your attraction to others consistently fluctuates, you might find that you don’t identify with the description of any one sexual orientation because not just one fits your sexual attraction pattern.
  • Your sexual attraction, behavior, and identity aren’t consistent. You might find that there are times in your life when your thoughts and actions don’t match your identity. For instance, if you identify as straight but are sometimes sexually intimate with the same gender or if you identify as gay but often find yourself attracted to someone of another gender. These inconsistencies across your attraction, behavior, and identity might mean you are sexually fluid.

Young adults who have a fluid sexual orientation might experience or be worried that they may experience negative social reactions when letting people know about their fluidity. This can play a role in the negative mental effects some people might experience during their time of fluctuation.7 But accepting that your sexuality is changing might actually lead to better authentic self-expression. And being your true self can benefit your overall satisfaction and well-being.8 Self-acceptance of your sexuality has itself been linked to better mental health.9

Sexual fluidity is the ability for a person’s sexual identity, attraction, or behavior to change over time. This change can happen several times throughout your life or only once

Wherever you find yourself on the sexuality spectrum, the real importance lies in your ability to remain honest and true to your feelings. And remember you’re not alone. You can reach out to a trusted friend or family member for support; make an appointment with a healthcare provider or counseling service; join a support group to meet other people who are sexually fluid; or visit resources like The National Resource Center on LGBTQ Aging, which provides information and support to older members of the queer community, their families, and care partners.

Sources:

  1. Diamond LM. Sexual Fluidity in Male and Females. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2016;8(4):249-256. doi:10.1007/s11930-016-0092-z.
  2. Hargons C, Mosley D, Stevens-Watkins D, Studying Sex: A Content Analysis of Sexuality Research in Counseling Psychology. Couns Psychol. 2017;45(4):528–546. doi:10.1177/0011000017713756.
  3. Katz-Wise SL, Williams DN, Keo-Meier CL, Budge SL, Pardo S, Sharp C. Longitudinal Associations of Sexual Fluidity and Health in Transgender Men and Cisgender Women and Men. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2017; 4(4):460–471. doi:10.1037/sgd0000246.
  4. Katz-Wise SL. Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men: associations with sexual orientation and sexual identity development. 2013;189-208. doi:10.1080/19419899.2013.876445.
  5. Kaestle CE. Sexual Orientation Trajectories Based on Sexual Attractions, Partners, and Identity: A Longitudinal Investigation From Adolescence Through Young Adulthood Using a U.S. Representative Sample. J Sex Res. 2019;56(7):811-826. doi:10.1080/00224499.2019.1577351.
  6. Gates GJ. LGBT Data Collection Amid Social and Demographic Shifts of the US LGBT Community. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(8):1220–1222. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303927.
  7. Frickea J, Sironib M. Sexual fluidity and BMI, obesity, and physical activity. SSM Popul Health. 2020; 11:100620. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100620.
  8. Al-Khouja, M., Weinstein, N., Ryan, W. and Legate, N., 2022. Self-expression can be authentic or inauthentic, with differential outcomes for well-being: Development of the authentic and inauthentic expression scale (AIES). Journal of Research in Personality, 97, p.104191.
  9. Camp, J., Vitoratou, S. and Rimes, K., 2020. LGBQ Self-Acceptance and Its Relationship with Minority Stressors and Mental Health: A Systematic Literature Review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), pp.2353-2373.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

We often hear that sexuality is on a spectrum.

What exactly does that mean?

Sexuality is fluid and ever-changing — not something stagnant to be “discovered.”

By Kelly Grace Finney

You’ll hear it all the time: Sexuality is on a spectrum. But what exactly does this mean? And how does it differ from checking off “straight, gay, or bisexual” on an intake form?

In modern psychological research, “sexual orientation” is a term used to describe the overarching umbrella of human sexual preferences. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, sexual attraction, romantic attraction, sexual behavior and sexual identity. For a lot of folks, these factors all align: For example, a straight woman who is sexually and romantically attracted to men, with a history of sexual relationships with only men. However, these differences are not so clearly defined in a lot of folks’ experiences, which can lead to a lot of shame and confusion.

Sexual fluidity is the concept that sexual orientation can be context-dependant and change over time. You may have heard the term “gay for the stay” to describe incarcerated folks having same-sex relationships in prison when they would otherwise engage in opposite-sex relationships in their communities.

But this isn’t just limited to folks who are removed and isolated from greater society. Even “Saturday Night Live’s” comedy music group The Lonely Island wrote the song “The Golden Rule” as a humorous defense of having three-ways with a member of the same gender. It is also common for folks to engage in sexual relationships with one gender, but fantasize about or watch pornography focused on other genders. And we can’t forget about those who identify as straight but have a habit of kissing or engaging in other sexual behaviors with people of the same gender when under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. If sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual behavior were all the same, how could we account for these differences in alignment?

This is why it is so important to pay attention to the differences between sexual identity and sexual attraction. A lesbian woman could have a satisfying sexual experience with a man, but that does not necessarily mean that she wants to continue engaging in sex with men, nor does it mean she would want to communicate to others that she is looking for a heterosexual partnership. Therefore, she could still identify as lesbian as a way to tell others that she is looking for partnership with another woman.

Our sexual identities are labels that we use to let ourselves and others know what type of relationships we prefer. However, sexual identity is not the end-all, be-all of relational preferences.

By labeling folks’ sexual fluidity as “confusion,” we are invalidating the very meaningful relationships that others engage in. As Carrie Bradshaw put it on “Sex and the City,” “I’m not even sure bisexuality exists. I think it’s just a layover on the way to Gaytown.”

While this was broadcast in the year 2000, many folks today still struggle to understand anything outside of the gay-straight binary. We often receive cultural messages that bisexual men are really homosexuals testing the waters, while bisexual women engage in same-sex relationships to gain attention from men.

What do these misconceptions have in common? They both rely on the idea that fundamentally, if given the choice, men are ultimately the most desired gender. This patriarchal idea serves the function of categorizing folks in neat, clean boxes as a means to oppress. But, as psychological researchers keep telling us, humans are anything but easily categorized.

Our rigid views around sexuality and sexual identity are part of what fuels violence against transgender and non-binary folk. If society didn’t expect us to “find” and settle on our sexual preferences, there wouldn’t be so much pressure on people, especially straight folk, to defend their sexuality. For example, someone can identify as straight or mostly straight, but have a relationship with someone who is non-binary. This is the key difference between how we identify and who we are attracted to. We should be embracing these gray areas, rather than utilizing shame to discourage exploration.

Sexuality is fluid and ever-changing — not something stagnant to be “discovered.” If we let go of the expectation that we must be “sure” of our sexual preferences, we open up doors to more satisfying sexual and relational experiences.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Pride 2022

Happy Gay Pride Month!

gay-pride.jpg

It’s time, once again, to post my annual pride posting.

In my lifetime I’ve witnessed a most remarkable change in societal attitudes toward those of us on the sexual fringe. One only needs to go back 50 years in time. I was 17 years old then and I knew I was queer. When I looked out on the world around me this is what I saw. Homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder by the nation’s psychiatric authorities, and gay sex was a crime in every state but Illinois. Federal workers could be fired merely for being gay.

Today, gays and trans folks serve openly in the military, work as TV news anchors and federal judges, win elections as big-city mayors and members of Congress. Popular TV shows have gay and trans protagonists.

Six years ago this month, a Supreme Court ruling lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the whole country.

The transition over five decades has been far from smooth — replete with bitter protests, anti-gay violence, backlashes that inflicted many political setbacks, and AIDS. Unlike the civil rights movement and the women’s liberation movement, the campaign for gay rights unfolded without household-name leaders.

And yet some still experience a backlash in the dominant culture. I don’t relish the idea, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention it. And while we endure this be reminded that it won’t smart nearly as much if we know our history. And we should also remember the immortal words of Martin Luther King, Jr. “The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice.”

In honor of gay pride month, a little sex history lesson — The Stonewall Riots

The confrontations between demonstrators and police at The Stonewall Inn, a mafia owned bar in Greenwich Village NYC over the weekend of June 27-29, 1969 are usually cited as the beginning of the modern Lesbian/Gay liberation Movement. What might have been just another routine police raid onstonewall.jpg a bar patronized by homosexuals became the pivotal event that sparked the entire modern gay rights movement.

The Stonewall riots are now the stuff of myth. Many of the most commonly held beliefs are probably untrue. But here’s what we know for sure.

  • In 1969, it was illegal to operate any business catering to homosexuals in New York City — as it still is today in many places in the world. The standard procedure was for New York City’s finest to raid these establishments on a regular basis. They’d arrest a few of the most obvious ‘types’ harass the others and shake down the owners for money, then they’d let the bar open as usual by the next day.
  • Myth has it that the majority of the patrons at the Stonewall Inn were black and Hispanic drag queens. Actually, most of the patrons were probably young, college-age white guys lookin for a thrill and an evening out of the closet, along with the usual cadre of drag queens and hustlers. It was reasonably safe to socialize at the Stonewall Inn for them, because when it was raided the drag queens and bull-dykes were far more likely to be arrested then they were.
  • After midnight June 27-28, 1969, the New York Tactical Police Force called a raid on The Stonewall Inn at 55 Christopher Street in NYC. Many of the patrons who escaped the raid stood around to witness the police herding the “usual suspects” into the waiting paddywagons. There had recently been several scuffles where similar groups of people resisted arrest in both Los Angeles and New York.
  • Stonewall was unique because it was the first time gay people, as a group, realized that what threatened drag queens and bull-dykes threatened them all.
  • Many of the onlookers who took on the police that night weren’t even homosexual. Greenwich Village was home to many left-leaning young people who had cut their political teeth in the civil rights, anti-war and women’s lib movements.
  • As people tied to stop the arrests, the mêlée erupted. The police barricaded themselves inside the bar. The crowd outside attempted to burn it down. Eventually, police reinforcements arrived to disperse the crowd. But this just shattered the protesters into smaller groups that continued to mill around the streets of the village.
  • A larger crowd assembled outside the Stonewall the following night. This time young gay men and women came to protest the raids that were commonplace in the city. They held hands, kissed and formed a mock chorus line singing; “We are the Stonewall Girls/We wear our hair in curls/We have no underwear/We show our pubic hair.” Don’t ‘cha just love it?
  • Police successfully dispersed this group without incident. But the print media picked up the story. Articles appeared in the NY Post, Daily News and The Village Voice. Theses helped galvanize the community to rally and fight back.
  • Within a few days, representatives of the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis (two of the country’s first homophile rights groups) organized the city’s first ever “Gay Power” rally in Washington Square. Some give hundred protesters showed up; many of them gay and lesbians.

stonewall02.jpgThe riots led to calls for homosexual liberation. Fliers appeared with the message: “Do you think homosexuals are revolting? You bet your sweet ass we are!” And the rest, boys and girls, is as they say is history.

During the first year after Stonewall, a whole new generation of organizations emerged, many identifying themselves for the first time as “Gay.” This not only denoted sexual orientation, but a radical way to self-identify with a growing sense of open political activism. Older, more staid homophile groups soon began to make way for the more militant groups like the Gay Liberation Front.

The vast majority of these new activists were under thirty; dr dick’s generation, don’t cha know. We were new to political organizing and didn’t know that this was as ground-breaking as it was. Many groups formed on colleges campuses and in big cities around the world.

By the following summer, 1970, groups in at least eight American cities staged simultaneous events commemorating the Stonewall riots on the last Sunday in June. The events varied from a highly political march of three to five thousand in New York to a parade with floats for 1200 in Los Angeles. Seven thousand showed up in San Francisco.

Posted on

Words matter

— Terms, pronouns and vocabulary to add to your everyday dictionary

By Sharla Brown-Ajayi

The glossary listed below is a list of terms used within the LGBTQIA community. This list is not completely comprehensive, as language is constantly evolving and new terms and identities are always forming. It is important to mirror the language someone uses to describe themselves to affirm their identity. When in doubt about a word, just ask!

advocate – ( verb) to actively support a particular cause, the action of working to end intolerance or educate others

agender – ( adj. ) a person with no (or very little) connection to the traditional system of gender, no personal alignment with the concepts of either man or woman, and/or someone who sees themselves as existing without gender. Sometimes called gender neutrois, gender neutral, or genderless.

androgyny/androgynous – ( noun ) a gender expression that has elements of both masculinity and femininity

aromantic – ( adj. ) experiencing little or no romantic attraction to others and/or has a lack of interest in romantic relationships/behavior. Aromanticism exists on a continuum from people who experience no romantic attraction or have any desire for romantic activities, to those who experience low levels, or romantic attraction only under specific conditions. Sometimes abbreviated to “aro” (pronounced like “arrow”).

asexual – ( adj. ) : experiencing little or no sexual attraction to others and/or a lack of interest in sexual relationships/behavior. Asexuality exists on a continuum from people who experience no sexual attraction or have any desire for sex, to those who experience low levels, or sexual attraction only under specific conditions. Sometimes abbreviated to “ace.”. For more information, click here.

bigender – ( adj ) a person who fluctuates between traditionally “woman” and “man” gender-based behavior and identities, identifying with both genders (or sometimes identifying with either man or woman, as well as a third, different gender).

binder – ( noun ) an undergarment used to alter or reduce the appearance of one’s breasts. Binding is often used to change the way other’s read/perceive one’s anatomical sex characteristics, and/or as a form of gender expression.

biological sex – ( noun ) a medical term used to refer to the chromosomal, hormonal and anatomical characteristics that are used to classify an individual as female, male, or intersex. Often referred to as simply “sex,” “physical sex,” “anatomical sex,” or specifically as “sex assigned at birth.”

biphobia – ( noun ) a range of negative attitudes (e.g., fear, anger, intolerance, invisibility, resentment, erasure, or discomfort) that one may have or express toward bisexual individuals. Biphobia can come from and be seen within the LGBTQ community as well as straight society.

bisexual – 1 ( adj. ) a person who experiences attraction to men and women. 2 ( adj. ) a person who experiences attraction to people of their gender and another gender. Bisexual attraction does not have to be equally split, or indicate a level of interest that is the same across the genders an individual may be attracted to. For more information, click here.

chosen name – ( noun ) a name that an individual chooses to be called that is different than their legal name. The term “chosen name” is usually favored over “preferred name” since preferred name may imply the name is just a preference, rather than a matter of identity.

cisgender – ( adj. ) a gender description for when someone’s sex assigned at birth and gender identity correspond (e.g., someone who was assigned male at birth, and identifies as a man). The word cisgender can also be shortened to “cis.”

cisnormativity – ( noun ) the assumption, in individuals and in institutions, that everyone is cisgender, and that cisgender identities are superior to transgender identities and people. Leads to invisibility of transgender or gender non-confomring identities.

closeted – ( adj. ) an individual who is not open to themselves or others about their (queer) sexuality or gender identity.

coming in – ( verb ) the process by which one accepts and/or comes to identify one’s own sexuality or gender identity (to “come in” to oneself).

coming out – ( verb ) the process by which one shares one’s sexuality or gender identity with others.

constellation – ( noun ) a way to describe the arrangement or structure of a polyamorous relationship.

dead name – ( noun ) the name given at birth/legal name of someone who has since changed their name or goes by a different name.

demiromantic – ( adj. ) little or no capacity to experience romantic attraction until a strong connection is formed with someone, often within a sexual relationship.

demisexual – ( adj. ) little or no capacity to experience sexual attraction until a strong connection is formed with someone, often within a romantic relationship.

drag king – ( noun ) someone who performs (hyper-) masculinity theatrically.

drag queen – ( noun ) someone who performs (hyper-) femininity theatrically.

emotional attraction – ( noun ) a capacity that evokes want to engage in emotionally intimate behavior (e.g., sharing, confiding, trusting, inter-depending), experienced in varying degrees (from little-to-none to intense). Often conflated with sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and/or spiritual attraction.

fluid(ity) – ( adj. ) generally with another term attached, like gender-fluid or fluid-sexuality, fluid(ity) describes an identity that may change or shift over time between or within the mix of the options available.

folx – ( noun ) a gender neutral term used to address a group

gay – 1 ( adj. ) experiencing attraction solely (or primarily) to some members of the same gender. Can be used to refer to men who are attracted to other men and women who are attracted to women. 2 ( adj. ) an umbrella term used to refer to the queer community as a whole, or as an individual identity label for anyone who is not straight.

gender binary – ( noun ) the idea that there are only two genders, man and woman.

gender confirmation surgery (GCS) – ( noun ) used by some medical professionals to refer to a group of surgical options that alter a person’s biological sex. “Gender confirmation surgery” is considered by many to be a more affirming term than gender reassignment surgery.

gender expression – ( noun ) the external display of one’s gender, through a combination of clothing, grooming, demeanor, social behavior, and other factors, generally made sense of on scales of masculinity, femininity, or another gender. Also referred to as “gender presentation.”

gender fluid – ( adj. ) a gender identity best described as a dynamic mix of multiple genders. A person who is gender fluid may feel like a mix of man or woman or another gender, but may feel more one gender on certain days.

gender identity – ( noun ) the internal perception of one’s gender, and how they label themselves, based on how much they align or don’t align with what they understand their options for gender to be.

gender non-conforming – 1 ( adj. ) a gender expression descriptor that indicates a non-traditional gender presentation (masculine woman or feminine man). 2 ( adj. ) a gender identity label that indicates a person who identifies outside of the gender binary. Often abbreviated as “GNC.”

gender normative – ( adj. ) someone whose gender presentation or gender identity aligns with society’s gender-based expectations.

genderqueer – 1 ( adj. ) a gender identity label often used by people who do not identify with the binary of man/woman. 2 ( adj. ) an umbrella term for many gender non-conforming or non-binary identities (e.g., agender, bigender, genderfluid).

gender variant – ( adj. ) someone who does not conform to gender-based expectations of society.

heteronormativity – ( noun ) the assumption, in individuals and/or in institutions, that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior to all other sexualities. Leads to invisibility and stigmatizing of other sexualities. Heteronormativity also leads us to assume that only masculine men and feminine women are straight.

heterosexual – ( adj. ) experiencing attraction solely (or primarily) to people of a different gender.

homophobia – ( noun ) an umbrella term for a range of negative attitudes (e.g., fear, anger, intolerance, resentment, erasure, or discomfort) that one may have toward LGBTQ people. The term can also connote a fear, disgust, or dislike of being perceived as LGBTQ.

homosexual – ( adj. ) a person primarily attracted to members of the same sex/gender. This historically medical term is considered stigmatizing (particularly as a noun) due to its history as a category of mental illness, and is discouraged for common use.

intersectionality – ( noun ) a term coined by Kimberle Crenshaw referring to the ways that systems of oppression are connected and overlapping

intersex – ( adj. ) term for a combination of chromosomes, gonads, hormones, internal sex organs, and genitals that differs from the patterns of male or female. Formerly known as hermaphrodite (or hermaphroditic), but these terms are now outdated and derogatory.

lesbian – ( adj. ) women who are primarily attracted to other women.

MSM / WSW – ( abbr. ) men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women, to distinguish sexual behaviors from sexual identities: because a man is straight, it doesn’t mean he’s not having sex with men. Often used in the field of HIV/Aids education, prevention, and treatment.

Mx. – ( noun ) an honorific (e.g. Mr., Ms., Mrs., etc.) that is gender neutral. It is often the option of choice for folks who do not identify within the gender binary

outing – ( verb ) involuntary or unwanted disclosure of another person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or intersex status.

pansexual – ( adj. ) a person who experiences attraction for members of all gender identities/expressions. Often shortened to “pan.”

passing – 1 ( adj. & verb ) transgender individuals being accepted as, or able to “pass for,” a member of their self-identified gender identity (regardless of sex assigned at birth) without being identified as transgender. 2 ( adj. ) an LGB/queer individual who is believed to be or perceived as straight.

preferred pronouns – ( noun ) often used during introductions, becoming more common as a standard practice. Many suggest removing the “preferred,” because it indicates flexibility and/or the power for the speaker to decide which pronouns to use for someone else.

polyamorous – ( noun ) refers to the practice of, desire for, or orientation toward having ethical, honest, and consensual non-monogamous relationships (i.e. relationships that may include multiple partners). Often shortened to “poly.”

queer – 1 ( adj. ) an umbrella term to describe individuals who don’t identify as straight and/or cisgender. 2 ( noun ) a slur used to refer to someone who isn’t straight and/or cisgender. Due to its historical use as a derogatory term, and how it is still used as a slur many communities, it is not embraced or used by all members of the LGBTQ community. The term “queer” can often be use interchangeably with LGBTQ (e.g., “queer people” instead of “LGBTQ people”).

questioning – ( adj. ) an individual who or a time when someone is unsure about or exploring their own sexual orientation or gender identity.

QPOC / QTPOC – initialisms that stand for queer people of color and queer and/or trans people of color.

romantic attraction – ( noun ) a capacity that evokes want to engage in romantic intimate behavior (e.g., dating, relationships, marriage), experienced in varying degrees (from little-to-none, to intense). Often conflated with sexual attraction, emotional attraction, and/or spiritual attraction.

sex assigned at birth (SAAB) – ( abbr. ) a phrase used to intentionally recognize a person’s assigned sex (not gender identity). Sometimes called “designated sex at birth” (DSAB) or “sex coercively assigned at birth” (SCAB), or specifically used as “assigned male at birth” (AMAB) or “assigned female at birth” (AFAB)

sexual attraction – ( noun ) a capacity that evokes want to engage in physically intimate behavior (e.g., kissing, touching, intercourse), experienced in varying degrees (from little-to-none, to intense). Often conflated with romantic attraction, emotional attraction, and/or spiritual attraction.

sexual orientation – ( noun ) the type of sexual, romantic, emotional/spiritual attraction one has the capacity to feel for some others, generally labeled based on the gender relationship between the person and the people they are attracted to.

skoliosexual – ( adj. ) being primarily attracted to some genderqueer, transgender, and/or non-binary people.

spiritual attraction – ( noun ) a capacity that evokes the want to engage in intimate behavior based on one’s experience with, interpretation of, or belief in the supernatural (e.g., religious teachings, messages from a deity), experienced in varying degrees (from little-to-none, to intense). Often conflated with sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and/or emotional attraction.

stealth – ( adj. ) a transgender person who is not “out” as transgender, and is perceived/known by others as cisgender.

straight – ( adj. ) a person primarily attracted to people who are not their same sex/gender.

third gender – ( noun ) a gender category that is used by societies that recognise three or more genders. A conceptual term meaning different things to different people who use it, as a way to move beyond the gender binary.

top surgery – ( noun ) this term refers to surgery for the construction of a male-type chest or breast augmentation for a female-type chest.

transgender – ( adj. ) an umbrella term for anyone whose sex assigned at birth and gender identity do not correspond (e.g., someone who was assigned male at birth, but does not identify as a man).

transitioning – ( verb ) the process of a transgender person changing aspects of themself (e.g., their appearance, name, pronouns, or making physical changes to their body) to be more congruent with their gender identity

transphobia – ( noun ) the fear of, discrimination against, or hatred of people who are transgender, the transgender community, or gender ambiguity. Transphobia can be seen within the queer community, as well as in general society.;

two-spirit – ( noun ) a term within Native American communities to recognize individuals who possess qualities or fulfill roles of both genders. This term is often conflated with sexuality, but was historically about gender identity.

ze / zir – ( pronoun ) pronouns that are gender neutral and preferred by some transgender people. They replace “he” and “she” and “his” and “hers” respectively.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide to Going Gay

By Tom Rasmussen

As your least favorite brand has likely reminded you in an emoji-filled mailer that you just can’t seem to unsubscribe from, it’s Pride month again. And so begins the annual wheel of discourse: Should Pride be a party or a protest? Has it been co-opted by big brands? Is the rainbow actually ugly? Should the police be banned from marching at Pride? Yes, yes, yes, yes.

But ladies, I’m tired of the wheel. It’s been a hard 30 years for me as a non-binary homosexual on this cis, straight planet. And so for this year’s Pride, as a treat to myself, I’ve decided I’m taking some time off. I’m done with waiting at the doors of big companies who are desperately trying not to get canceled, and asking for inclusion with big puppy dog eyes. I’m tired of writing explainers on how to be a good ally to a trans person. (For that, read Shon Faye.) And no, I don’t want a credit card with two men kissing on it. I don’t need a drink that is pink! Why is this sidewalk painted rainbow?!

Yes, I’ve decided for this Pride month I’m finally going to be really honest—really, really honest—about what we LGBTQs get up to all year round when our image isn’t being co-opted by a smoothie company. Because when you aren’t looking, we gays are plotting and planning the Gay Agenda. The Gay Agenda which, to terrify all of my loyal conservative fans, always has been and always will be about making as many people gay as possible. Queer as possible. Trans as possible. And so this Pride month, as your agony aunt here at Vogue, I am here to deliver to you the LGBTQ+ message: I’m here to tell you that it’s time to go gay.

Everyone’s doing it. Chrishell from Selling Sunset did it; your ex-best friend’s mum from high school did it; loads of celebs who can’t be named did it; hey, you probably already did it in college. And while I’m aware it’s not a choice, let me tell you, if it was, I’d choose it! It’s way more fun, and way more flirty, than straight life.

Here in LGBTQ+ Town, we get to party until we’re in our mid-sixties, at which point we’re held up as community icons. We get to wear leather without looking try-hard, we get to watch unhinged drag queens fall over in dive bars, and we get to holiday in homes in Tangier owned by “interior decoration gays.” We’re statistically more likely to be chic and fashionable (although some gay men seem to want to actively exclude themselves from this one) and people—literally, like, everyone—are desperate for our approval. We have more sex than our straight counterparts, we are better at everything than our heterosexual peers (there are no stats on this, but it’s true), and we get to say things like “J’adore” and mean it both ironically and unironically.

We have the best literature, from Giovanni’s Room to Detransition, Baby. The best film and theater, from Pink Flamingos to A Strange Loop. The best fashion, from Thierry Mugler to Telfar. The best art too, from the Sistine Chapel to Leigh Bowery. What do the straights have? Chinos and golf tournaments? Marriage and a Volvo? Yep, you got it—being gay is better. It’s chicer. It’s hotter. So what are you waiting for?

A note on how you’re likely to be viewed after doing so. The people around you are no longer strangers, commuters, or fellow diners at Chinese Tuxedo. No. As part of the LGBTQ+ community, you will be forced into visibility. Sometimes you’ll like it, sometimes you’ll hate it. A healthy way to deal with this, though—which my therapist has strongly advised against—is to start calling those around you your “audience.” “Fans” also works, but the truth is that audience implies a much more generous, symbiotic, artistic relationship between you and this woman who is staring at you at the crosswalk.

It’s also time to get really good at sex. Alas, I don’t make the rules. But if there is one thing that unites every LGBTQ+ person I know, it’s that we are good at sex. You don’t have to be kinky—although you can also be as kinky as they come—but we are frankly superior in bed. After all, why go through all of the boring drama of coming out and detailing exactly how you’re going to have sex to your own mother if you’re not going to actually be good at it? It’s time to transcend the dynamic of the jackrabbit and the wet flannel. You are a sex phoenix, and you’re rising from the ashes.

A note on coming out. Everyone—well, a lot of brands—will tell you you have to come out. But you don’t. Screw it. You don’t owe explaining yourself to anyone. Of course, try not to stay too repressed and then let those bottled-up feelings turn you into a psychopathic murderer, or perhaps worse, very very homophobic, but your sexuality and gender are all yours. Come out to who you want. Don’t come out to who you don’t want.

Finally, don’t be mean. We all go through a phase of feeling really pissed off with the world for making it harder for us—and so we wake up every day and heave on our suit of bitchy armor and slag off everyone around us and make it a bit. And sure, people love it, but eventually, they’ll wonder if you talk about them behind their backs too, and in the end, it won’t make you happy. Instead, engage with your community—go to the gay bar, read about queer history, or host a book brunch for you and the girlies.

That’s right, these days, you can literally have it all. (Even children!) But first, you have to simply take the plunge this Pride month: Get in loser, we’re going gay.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!