Why is the clit so sensitive?

Thanks to over 10,000 nerves, first real count finds

The first-ever real count of nerve fibers in the human clitoris indicates that they are over 10,000 in number, significantly more than previous estimates suggested.

By Clarissa Brincat

  • Researchers sought to quantify the number of nerve fibers that innervate the human clitoris by analyzing samples of clitoral nerve tissue from human volunteers.
  • They found that the human clitoris contains 10,281 nerve fibers on average, which exceeds a previous estimate based on a study in cows.
  • A better understanding of human clitoral innervation has ramifications for many areas of medical practice, including gender-affirming surgery and repair of the dorsal clitoral nerve after genital mutilation or surgical injury.

The clitoris — a pleasure-producing sexual organ that is located where the labia minora (inner lips) meet and extends along both sides of the vagina — is the female equivalent of the penis.

In fact, the clitoris originates from the same mass of tissue in the embryo that gives rise to the penis.

Although it carries the same importance in sexual functioning, the clitoris has been less widely studied than its male counterpart.

Overturning outdated assumptions

Researchers are aware that the clitoris has a substantial supply of nerves — cordlike structures composed of nerve fibers (or axons) — that conduct signals between the brain and spinal cord and other parts of the body.

However, the number of nerve fibers within the human clitoris has never been officially quantified. The most often-cited claim is that the clitoris has “8,000 nerve endings,” but this figure originates from a bovine study mentioned in a book titled The Clitoris, which appeared in 1976.

To rectify this outdated piece of essential information, a study led by the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) examined tissue samples of the dorsal nerve of the clitoris in an effort to quantify the number of nerve fibers innervating the human clitoris.

The dorsal nerve, which consists of two symmetrical, tube-like structures, is the main nerve responsible for clitoral sensation.

The researchers presented the results of this first known count of human clitoral tissue at a scientific conference hosted by the Sexual Medicine Society of North America and the International Society for Sexual Medicine on October 27, 2022. A detailed paper explaining the study will appear in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

“[T]his [study] highlights the broad scope of knowledge gaps that are present within vulvar health. These fundamental gaps […] ultimately do result in significant consequences for patients,” Dr. Maria Uloko, study co-author and assistant professor of urology at the University of California, San Diego, told Medical News Today.

“There are numerous statistics regarding the difficulty of access to care for common vulvar conditions, [which] lead to significant healthcare cost[s] to patients as well as the healthcare system. We are talking [about] billions of dollars spent on vulvar and urinary conditions alone. And the societal cost of the psychological symptoms associated with just trying to get a diagnosis really can’t be quantified but they are quite high. This research is the start of reassessing what we know about the vulva and filling in those knowledge gaps.”

– Dr. Maria Uloko

10, 281 nerve fibers on average

The researchers obtained clitoris tissue samples from seven transmasculine volunteers who were undergoing a gender-affirming surgical procedure known as phalloplasty.

During a phalloplasty, surgeons use tissues taken from the person’s clitoris and other body parts to construct a functional penis.

The researchers looked at one half of the dorsal nerve, magnifying it 1,000 times under a microscope, and used image analysis software to count the individual nerve fibers.

In each sample, they found 5,140 nerve fibers on average. Since the dorsal clitoral nerve is symmetrical, they multiplied this number by two, concluding that the average dorsal nerve of the clitoris contains 10,281 nerve fibers, with a possible count ranging from 9,852 to 11,086.

This result is about 20% higher than the conventional estimate of 8,000 nerve fibers.

To put the findings in perspective, study coauthor Dr. Blair Peters, an assistant professor of surgery at the OHSU School of Medicine and a plastic surgeon who specializes in gender-affirming care, notes that:

“Even though the hand is many, many times larger than the clitoris, the median nerve [which runs through the wrist and hand] only contains about 18,000 nerve fibers, or fewer than two times the nerve fibers that are packed into the much-smaller clitoris.”

Study implications

The researchers believe that establishing the number of fibers in the dorsal clitoral nerve is an important step in the understanding of clitoral innervation and sexual response.

It should also draw attention to the need for more education, research, and funding attributed to studying the clitoris.

“Importantly, there are few options available to people who have suffered nerve damage to the clitoris and researchers should build on this work to be able to better treat these conditions. It should [equally] importantly be seen that this work came from trans people and is for people of all genders,” Dr. Peters told MNT.

One field that will benefit from the results of this study is clitoral reconstruction following female genital mutilation (FGM). There have been several reports of injury to the clitoris and its nerves as a result of FGM.

The researchers hope that their findings will lead to new surgical techniques to repair injured nerves.

Dr. Bahir Edouard Elias, a plastic, esthetic and reconstructive surgeon specializing in the field of surgical reconstruction after FGM, who did not contribute to the current research, told MNT that this “excellent study […] will be of great help” in that area.

Dr. Peters believes that the results of this study will improve sensory outcomes for transgender patients undergoing phalloplasty as the surgeon can better select which nerves to connect during the procedure.

The researchers are also hopeful that their findings could help reduce accidental nerve injuries during elective female genital cosmetic surgery. However, Dr. John G Hunter, professor of clinical surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine and attending plastic surgeon at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, expressed some skepticism in his comments to MNT.

“As [a] surgeon who has performed over 1,000 labiaplasties, with clitoral hood alteration in approximately half, my patients virtually never report negative ‘sexual function’ consequences from the procedure postoperatively,” he said.

“This is supported by published literature. But this is subjective, and follow-up is rarely longer than 4–6 months for labia minora (inner lip) reduction. Gender-reaffirming surgery is entirely different. It also includes much more psychological overtones,” he added.

According to Dr. Hunter, “[m]ore studies are needed, but [it is uncertain] that one will ever be able to correlate gross anatomical findings with functional — especially erotic/ sensory — findings in genital anatomy.”

Study limitations and next steps

When asked about the study’s limitations, Dr. Peters noted that the study had a small cohort and only one sample was collected from each participant.

Furthermore, all participants were on testosterone therapy. While hormone therapy should not impact nerve fiber count, the analysis of tissue samples from individuals who are not on exogenous hormones would support the study.

Another limitation, Dr. Peters pointed out, is that “the total number [of nerve fibers] was calculated assuming bilateral symmetric innervation” — that is, that the dorsal nerve is symmetrical.

The researchers also noted that the study focuses on myelinated nerve fibers in the dorsal clitoral nerve. Since unmyelinated nerve fibers and other nerves in the clitoris were not counted, the result of this study likely underestimates the number of nerve fibers in the human clitoris.

In the future, Dr. Peters would like to conduct similar studies on the penis glans (or head), with the hope of shedding more light on the two organs and aiding surgeons in creating a functional clitoris for transgender patients.

Complete Article HERE!

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!

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!

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!

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!

How an orgasm affects your body and mind for the following 60 minutes

From the moment of orgasm to 60 minutes after, find out exactly what happens to your body.

By Hannah Millington

The benefits of an orgasm are widely known. They can relieve stress, aid sleep and even boost the immune system. But understanding exactly what happens to us mentally and physically after reaching climax is something few of us explain.

There’s more going on internally than we might realise, with our body still feeling the effects 60 minutes later. From the moment of orgasm, there are many different chemical, physiological and psychological changes that take place.

The main findings, from sex toy experts Bedbible, are pretty fascinating.

0 minutes after an orgasm

After achieving an orgasm, the brain is hit with a powerful wave of dopamine, creating a high similar to the euphoria of taking heroin.

10 minutes after an orgasm

For some, ‘post-sex blues’ can take effect fairly quickly after orgasm, with sudden feelings of depression and agitation created as a result of the dopamine levels dropping.

30 minutes after an orgasm

Blood pressure and heart rate should return to normal and muscles in the penis or vagina might begin to cramp due to the muscles contracting at an intense rate.

40 minutes after an orgasm

Sleepiness is common 40 minutes after, this is due to both the exercise underwent to achieve orgasm and the mental exhaustion that comes with the rise and fall of dopamine levels.

60 minutes after an orgasm

Whilst it differs from man to man, some men will take longer than an hour to recover post-orgasm, this is known as the refractory period. Women, however, tend to recover at a faster rate.

In terms of sexual arousal, specifically in women, NHS GO lists the process in order for women and men as: arousal, plateau, orgasm and resolution.

What happens in in a male and female’s bodies during the orgasm stage is slightly different.

Orgasm in women

  • Orgasm is the intense and pleasurable release of sexual tension that has built up in the earlier stages (whether during sex, masturbation etc). It involves contractions (muscles tightening and relaxing, 0.8 seconds apart) of the genital muscles
  • Most women don’t experience the ‘recovery period’ that men do after an orgasm. A woman can have another orgasm if she’s stimulated again
  • Not all women have an orgasm every time they have sex. For most women, foreplay is an important role in it occurring at all. This can include touching certain parts of the body and and stimulating the clitoris

And for ‘stage three: orgasm and ejaculation’ for men, the page states:

Orgasm in men

  • A series of contractions send semen into the urethra, which is the tube that urine and semen come out of from the penis
  • These contractions occur in the pelvic floor muscles (which support the bowel and bladder), in the tube that carries sperm from the testicles to the penis
  • They also occur in the seminal vesicles (glands that produce fluids) and the prostate gland (a small gland in the pelvis, between the penis and bladder), which both add fluid to the sperm. This mix of sperm (5%) and fluid (95%) is called semen
  • These contractions are part of orgasm, and the man can reach a point where he can’t stop ejaculation happening
  • Contractions of the prostate gland and the pelvic floor muscles then lead to ejaculation, when semen comes out of the penis
  • The misunderstood female orgasm

    Research from last month also concluded that ‘moaning’ is not part of the female orgasm and that it should be removed from analysis of women climaxing.

    Pre, peri, and post-menopausal women were asked in a questionnaire about their orgasm experiences both with and without a partner.

    Questions were based on the Orgasm Rating Scale (ORS) and the Bodily Sensations of Orgasm (BSOS), which are commonly used in related scientific research.

    The BSOS includes descriptions like ‘faster breathing’, ‘lower limb spasms’, ‘facial tingling’, ‘sweating’ and ‘increased heart rate’.

    While the researchers at the University of Ottawa found bodily sensations in both scales to be present, including ‘choppy/shallow breathing’, ‘increased blood pressure’ and ‘hot flashes’, they recommended that ‘copulatory vocalisations’ (moaning) should be removed from the BSOS.

    Essentially, moaning may be at least partly under a women’s control, even if they don’t realise.

Complete Article HERE!

Sex addiction isn’t recognised by science.

So, why are people still being diagnosed?

Sex addiction is not a condition that is recognised by any scientific or medical community.

By Beth Ashley

Fresh out of a difficult breakup and confused about his unrelenting desire to have more than one partner, 30-year-old podcaster Jamie, who’s asked to use his first name only, quickly headed to a therapist. “I want you to make me monogamous,” Jamie told his therapist.

For years, Jamie had struggled to stop thinking about sex — and sex with other people — whenever he was in a relationship — something Jamie, who’s now polyamorous, didn’t realise was an okay way to feel. But there are real difficulties attached to his relationship with sex. “The therapist let me know she couldn’t ‘make me monogamous,’ and instead suggested we worked through why I thought my sex life was problematic.”

Some thorough self-exploration showed Jamie that he had been having sex when he didn’t even want to with people he didn’t like, to fill “a type of void.” “After a good few sessions, a therapist gently showed me that I wasn’t having sex because I wanted to, I was doing it because I hated myself. And then I was diagnosed with sex addiction,” says Jamie.

We all have an idea of what we imagine sex addiction is like. These perceptions come from celebrities like Russell Brand talking about his orgy orchestrated on a spongy mattress in sex addiction rehab, or Colin Farrell describing his “obsession with sex.” While these difficulties are very real to the respective actors and should not be invalidated, a lack of understanding and poor education around sex generally has allowed highly publicised but inaccurate stories like these to represent what ‘sex addiction’ might look like.

And yet, ‘sex addiction’ is not even real. It is not a condition that is recognised by any scientific or medical community, including the World Health Organisation. Indeed, the term was even removed from the DSM-V by the American Psychiatric Association along with the term hypersexuality, in view of a growing body of research showing that ‘sex addiction’ is actually “no more than high libido coupled with low impulse control.” The ASA’s DSM-V is considered a definitive resource on mental disorders.

What Jamie and 30 percent of the male population (along with 30 percent of women) go through, is actually Compulsive Sexual Behaviour. Compulsive Sexual Behaviour is diagnosed in people who have poor impulse control around sex, which is when a person has trouble controlling their emotions or behaviours around sex even if they know they’re not right, and participate in negative and unwanted sexual situations. Silva Neves, a psychotherapist specialising in sexology, explains that “those impulsive behaviours have to be unwanted by the person themselves, not by an external source of judgement. The behaviours have to cause marked distress and impairment in people’s life functioning. It is not about the frequency of behaviours, and it is not about people cheating or watching pornography, or about addiction at all.”

Neves tells Mashable: “Although compulsive sexual behaviour may sound like an addiction, it is not because people’s brains are not impaired. Many people do struggle with their sexual behaviours, but these problems are not an addiction. What they’re really struggling with is repetitive and unwanted sexual behaviours that go against their own values.”

The term ‘sex addiction’ is thrown around a lot but it hasn’t actually been endorsed by any scientific communities, including the World Health Organisation, as there’s a complete lack of evidence to prove its existence. Yet, with news stories about celebrity sex addicts, rampant misinformation about sex swirling continuously online, and the misconception that high sex drives are innately damaging, the term stays popular.

Something about the term ‘sex addict’ didn’t feel right at the time but who am I to argue with a doctor?

That doesn’t mean people don’t struggle with sexual disorders. And unfortunately, it doesn’t stop people from being misdiagnosed with sex addiction. 25-year-old sex worker Chloe* knows this first-hand, having been incorrectly diagnosed with sex addiction by her GP (general practitioner). “I had a horrible ex-boyfriend who thought my sex drive was ‘out of hand’. He called me a ‘nympho’ and couldn’t compute why I wanted my job and my personal life to revolve around sex.” Chloe’s then-boyfriend pushed her to see a doctor, where the term ‘sex addiction’ was first said to her. She says “something about the term didn’t feel right at the time but who am I to argue with a doctor?” Like Jamie, Chloe was encouraged to try abstaining from sex. “It was literally impossible. I love sex and I didn’t want to give it up. I don’t think I had a problem, my GP was clearly basing my diagnosis on how much sex I was having,” Chloe adds.

It was two years later, when Chloe had left her boyfriend and made friends with other sex-positive people who shared her same interest in sex, that she realised she’d been misdiagnosed. “Being in a sex positive circle, there were plenty of people around me showing me there was nothing wrong with my sex drive. So what if I’m ‘obsessed’ with sex? Sex is great. What’s not to be obsessed with?” Chloe explains.

Neves says that people are often misdiagnosed with ‘sex addiction’ because many therapists are still trained in this old-fashioned concept, unfortunately. “There are also online tests such as ‘Am I a sex addict’ that people can do and self-diagnose. But those online tests have no basis in science,” he tells us.

For some, the ‘sex addiction’ term isn’t a problem. “I don’t mind being called a sex addict personally,” says Jamie. “It’s easier to explain to people and I feel like if it creates awareness, it can be a good thing.”

Words carry a lot of weight, and referring to this disorder incorrectly as an ‘addiction’ has led to many patients being treated incorrectly, according to Neves. Often, patients are recommended to practice permanent abstinence, a method that lacks a much-needed nuanced approach to sexuality. Neves explains that many people use sex and masturbation to soothe themselves from unpleasant emotions, underlying psychological disturbances or post-traumatic stress, and no one should be made to refrain from it.

26-year-old engineer Chris was incorrectly diagnosed by two separate GPs with sex addiction, finding out three years into his treatment that it wasn’t an addiction at all. “I was floored when I switched therapists and she informed me that it wasn’t a real thing. I’d been in and out of 12-step programmes — the kind of ones you get for drink and drugs — and every doctor I’d seen had told me to stop watching porn, wanking, and having sex as much as possible. They expected me to do that basically forever as well,” he tells Mashable.

“It was honestly disheartening. I never stayed on track with abstinence and I always felt like it was my fault, like I was doing something wrong. And obviously that would make abstinence even harder,” he says. “I saw a psychotherapist who told me I never should have been doing that, and that I had compulsive sexual behaviour which wasn’t an addiction. It was so upsetting.”

This strain of shame, which can dig deep into our psyches and wreak havoc, can also cause problematic sexual behaviour. Neves says “the acute shame is what keeps sexual behaviours problematic, because shame needs to be soothed.” Those who are labelled a sex addict and then essentially banned from sex will be trapped in a loop of unjust shame.

It’s down to us to decide what does or doesn’t fit into our sex lives, not anyone else. So unless abstinence or any other big changes to your sex life are on your sexual bucket list, they have no place as a treatment. Neves adds that “compulsive sexual behaviours can be treated with a sex-positive, sexology-informed approach that helps people understand their erotic mind as erotic awareness kills sexual compulsivity.”

If you’re suffering with a dependency on sex or a sex life that you’re finding damaging but difficult to pull away from, he suggests “investigating the function of sexual compulsivity.” Ask yourself, is the sexual behaviour there to soothe an underlying problem or unresolved trauma, or it there a conflict between the sex you want and enjoy, versus the sex you’re actually seeking? “Then treat the underlying causes, rather than trying to control behaviours on the surface.”

The mere suggestion of a person being addicted to sex contributes to the shame and stigma we already attach to sex in society. The concept that a person’s desire for sexual connection can go ‘too far’ or be ‘too high’ or ‘too low’ leads sexually active people to have confused ideas about what ‘normal sex’ might look like, proving just how much we need to move away from the idea of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ sex at all. This, along with our notorious lack of sex education, make the perfect breeding ground for sex-negative judgments.

Sex is shrouded in shame, myths and misinformation. As Neves puts it, “It is easy for people to believe that they’re ‘wrong’ or ‘broken’ if they don’t have what society deems as ‘healthy sex’ — which is basically vanilla heterosexual sex, missionary position with a scented candle of the frequency of not too much, not too little.” Sex is not like gambling or substances. It’s one of the most human, connective experiences we can engage in. And to hold real people with various sexual identities and tastes to a false idea of “normal sex” and punish them with sex prohibition rooted in bad science, is nothing short of joyless.

*names have been changed at interviewees’ request.

Complete Article HERE!

Queer Animals Are Everywhere.

Science Is Finally Catching On.

The animal kingdom isn’t nearly as straight as you think.

by Eliot Schrefer

In 1913, naturalists captured a flock of penguins from the Antarctic and brought them to spend the rest of their lives in the Edinburgh Zoo. The birds that survived the transition came to enchant the Scottish public with their antics. They could go from suave to goofy and back again, simply by gliding in the water, toddling around on land for a bit, then diving in once more.

Over the years, the zookeepers struggled to determine which penguins were male and which were female, renaming four of the five in the process. The complications only grew from there. Like most birds, penguins are socially but not sexually monogamous. Though they form lifelong unions, they are very happy to canoodle on the side — and there were only so many sexual configurations five of them could go through before one truth became self-evident: The penguins were bisexual. As zoo director T.H. Gillespie wryly observed in his 1932 recounting of these sexual triangulations, they “enjoy privileges not as yet permitted to civilized mankind.”

Bi penguins have been stirring things up for over a century. The first record of same-sex sex in penguins was in 1911, when explorer George Murray Levick discovered “depraved” behavior in wild Adélies. In 2000, a pair of male chinstrap penguins at New York City’s Central Park Zoo bonded and raised a chick from an egg they’d been given to foster, inspiring the children’s book “And Tango Makes Three.” More recently, penguin behavior sounded like it was ripped straight from a celebrity gossip site when it emerged that two male penguins had stolen an egg from a hetero couple at a Dutch zoo — and then proceeded to steal an egg from a “lesbian” couple the very next year.

Penguins aren’t the only sexually adventuresome animals. Over the past 20 years, a burst of research — driven in part by a new generation of scientists more accepting of queerness — has shown significant amounts of previously unreported homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom, from flour beetles to gorillas. While few animals are exclusively “gay” or “lesbian,” an extraordinary number, it now appears, engage in some form of same-sex relations. There are now reputable evidence-confirmed findings of such behavior in 1,500 animal species and counting

As a graduate student in animal studies, I’ve often faced an unpleasant prospect: The theory of natural selection, at least as it’s classically considered, could argue that queerness shouldn’t exist. In a Noah’s Ark conception of life, with dutifully procreating male-female pairs for each animal species, non-straight behavior seems to disrupt the natural order by preventing the transmission of genes over generations. This conundrum has started to feel far more than academic in recent months, as multiple states have passed legislation restricting reading about or even discussing LGBTQIA+ identities in schools. The logic behind such laws, it seems to me, goes something like this: If queerness doesn’t come about naturally, then it can be walled out of human populations by limiting access to the very idea of it.

The recent surge in same-sex animal scholarship, however, offers a powerful challenge to that thinking. For hundreds of years, it turns out, we’ve been looking at animal sex through too narrow a lens — with significant consequences for our beliefs about what counts as natural in our own species.

Christian theologians have long pointed to the absence of animal homosexuality as evidence that humans oughtn’t to be doing it, either. Thirteenth-century philosopher and priest Thomas Aquinas argued that homosexual behavior in humans is wrong precisely because it doesn’t occur between animals. He saw it as a sign of decadence — a falling down from our state of animal grace into the world of human corruption.

The assumption of heterosexuality among animals took its first major hit in 1834, when August Kelch, an entomologist, discovered two male Melolontha melolontha — beetles commonly known as cockchafers or doodlebugs — having sex. He concluded that it had to be an act of rape. As he initially framed it in a German scientific journal, “the larger and stronger of the two had forced itself on the smaller and weaker one, had exhausted it and only because of this dominance had conquered it

The puzzle of mating males captured the imagination of entomologists, who busily published articles about it for years. As science historian Ross Brooks chronicled in 2009 in the Archives of Natural History — in an article titled “All too human: responses to same-sex copulation in the common cockchafer” — some scientists proposed that the receiving males were being mistaken for females. Others offered still different explanations, but it wasn’t until 1896 that someone dared to put forward a radical suggestion: In a paper published even as Oscar Wilde sat in prison for “gross indecency,” Henri Gadeau de Kerville, a leading French entomologist, theorized that some of the doodlebugs just … preferred it (“pédérastie par goût”). He was thoroughly scolded by his colleagues — at which point the question of same-sex doodlebug sex, after having been bandied about for much of the 19th century, mostly dropped from scientific discourse.

Did scientists avoid publishing on same-sex animal sex because they were worried about being scolded as Gadeau de Kerville was? Or did they simply find it shameful? George Murray Levick, the explorer who wrote about homosexual behavior in Adélie penguins in 1911, shielded his observations of penguin “depravity” from casual observers by recording them in his field notes using the Greek alphabet — and they were still cut from the official expedition reports. A prominent mammalogist, Valerius Geist, couldn’t help but notice frequent homosexual sex at his bighorn sheep field site in the 1960s, but Geist avoided publishing those findings because it made him “cringe … to conceive of those magnificent beasts as ‘queers.’ ” Years later he relented, writing that he eventually “admitted that the rams lived in essentially a homosexual society.” As for those scientists who did want to write about same-sex sexual behavior in animals, one option was to couch it in the same judgmental language used for humans — as in a 1922 study on baboons called “Disturbances of the Sexual Sense,” or a 1987 study of same-sex mating in butterflies titled “A Note on the Apparent Lowering of Moral Standards in the Lepidoptera.”

Research has shown that chimpanzees use sex for more than procreation; male chimps engage in sexual activity to reconcile after fights.
Up to a third of Laysan albatross nests are female-female.

The minimizing of animal sexual diversity was not only about discomfort. Christine Webb, a primatologist at Harvard’s Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, explains that the dominant model of evolution “emphasizes selfish competition and the survival of the fittest.” But the chimpanzees Webb studies use sex for a variety of purposes, such as managing stress and tension. Once she and the co-authors of her recent paper allowed for observations that contradicted their assumptions that chimps had sex for procreation only, they made a breakthrough discovery: Males engage in sexual activity to reconcile after fights. A year later, a study of a separate group of chimps in Uganda found that “sociosexual behaviour” is common — and that the majority of it is between males.

This research is hardly an outlier. Coldblooded male garter snakes use pheromones to encourage courtship from other males in the area, forming “mating balls,” perhaps to help warm up individuals whose temperatures have gotten dangerously low. Polyamory — the bonding of three or more animals, instead of the conventional two — expands the numbers of parents for each offspring, increasing their survivability, and can be found in many species of waterfowl, most famously the graylag goose. Female-female pair bonds in birds such as gulls, roseate terns and albatrosses average more eggs (which are fertilized by sex outside the union) per nest. The fact that a bird population with many bonded females sharing a few males between them would have higher reproductive output led historian and ornithologist Jared Diamond to dryly wonder whether “further study of homosexually paired female birds may help clarify what, if anything, males are good for — in an evolutionary sense, of course.”

Evolutionary biologist Mounica Kota is a fan of Laysan albatrosses, for whom up to a third of the nests are female-female. “They’re like my lesbian moms. I have a big photograph of them in my office,” she told me. She’s part of the new generation of openly LGBTQIA+ scientists who are frank about how their personal identity aligns with their professional research, even if it opens them to accusations of partiality. Kota, who is a lesbian, struggled with coming out earlier in life, and she was heartened by a class in animal behavior that she took as an undergrad.

Sidney Woodruff, a PhD candidate in ecology at the University of California at Davis, has been studying conservation of the western pond turtle, which lacks sex chromosomes and whose sex is instead determined by incubation temperatures — a phenomenon turtle researchers dub “girls are hot, boys are cool.” Woodruff, who identifies as nonbinary and queer, feels kinship with animals who also cross sexual binaries — but they treat this personal element as a source of caution as much as anything else. “I have to keep in mind that if I’m researching sex and wildlife species, I’ll want it to be a certain way because of my own gender and sexual identity,” Woodruff told me. “It’s a lot of power that we have, but in our quest to find inaccuracies in previous research, we have to make sure we’re also being humble enough to know that we’re not always going to get the answer we want.”

Recently, scientists have begun to take seriously a theory that biologist Vincent Savolainen summarizes as “bisexual advantage”: the idea that fluid sexuality has increased reproduction chances over the history of life, making bisexuality “an evolutionary optimum.” In social animals, the logic goes, absolute homosexuality would produce no offspring, but absolute heterosexuality could also be limiting, as it might make for an organism that is “poor at forming social alliances.” Better for an animal to exist away from the extremes, so it won’t miss out on procreating or on the social survival strategies that same-sex activity offers. “The bisexual advantage model,” Savolainen concludes, “is perhaps the most conservative genetic explanation for the persistence of homosexual behavior.”

This model is supported by a 2019 paper from a group of young scholars that notes that the earliest creatures wouldn’t have discriminated between sexes, because the earliest creatures didn’t have sexes. Therefore, aversion to homosexual sex would have had to specifically arise over the history of life, which this team of researchers finds unlikely, since the opportunity cost of same-sex sex is relatively low. Given that sexual monogamy is more rare than we once thought, having occasional sex or even forming a lifelong bond with a same-sex partner doesn’t mean an animal isn’t also reproducing. As one of the originators of this “ancestral state” hypothesis, Max Lambert, put it to me: “Biologists told ourselves for so long that it must be unnatural. My research led to a good question: Why do queer things exist? The simple answer is that animal bisexuality is not costly. It was so biologically simple.”

As most any Homo sapiens will tell you, sex that doesn’t bring about offspring can still be worthwhile. The bonobo apes, for example, capitalize on the release of the bonding hormone oxytocin during homosexual sex to strengthen the social alliances between females. A study by primatologists Zanna Clay and Frans de Waal found that female-female sex is the most frequent sexual activity in the species — which is especially noteworthy, as bonobos also happen to be in a rough tie with chimpanzees as our closest animal relatives. Governed by a matriarchy of sexually connected mothers, they have far lower levels of aggression than chimps, giving them what Christine Webb described to me as “a reputation as the sexy hippie apes.”

Bottlenose dolphins also use sex to reinforce their social alliances, in their case between males. Outside of mother-calf bonds, unions between males are the only stable social unit in their society. Dolphin males will partner for life, and the pair will occasionally bring in a female to mate before going their own ways. It wasn’t until recent years that a prominent field site in Shark Bay, Australia, established just how those males cement their alliances: frequent and acrobatic sex, an average of 2.38 times an hour. (As one gay weekly newspaper joked, “Grindr has announced a new gay cruising app for dolphins, called Flippr.”)

In some marine snail species, all individuals are born male, and once two males choose each other, one of them simply changes sex. Much later, after she’s finished with her first partner, that now-female snail might meet a different male and stay female. In laboratory studies, some males kept choosing other males, even though they’d then have to wait a few days for their partner to change sex, while other males always went for females. The snails had preferences!

Webb argues that same-sex sexual behavior, as in her chimpanzee subjects, is an adaptive, desirable response to our needs as interconnected creatures. “What about cooperation?” she asks. “What about social bonding — which we know is really important for fitness, by the way, right? Social bonds are really important for well-being. Managing conflicts and managing stress and tension are really important for well-being. We’ve been fixated on one side of the story.”

Meanwhile, though members of some animal species gain advantages from same-sex behavior, research is also emerging to suggest that other species might do it just because it feels good. Within a scientific worldview that continues mostly to see animals as evolutionary cogs, this is a controversial take. Anthropologist Paul Vasey has been studying Japanese macaque monkeys for decades. Like bonobos, the macaques engage in frequent female-female sex. Vasey and his team methodically tested the various theories that have been proposed for the persistence of homosexual sex in the monkeys: that the females were expressing dominance; that they were bartering for parental care; that they were reconciling after a fight; or (my personal favorite) that they were staging sexual encounters to excite nearby males, in what I’d call the “you wish, guys” theory of monkey lesbianism. Vasey found that none of the theories held up to testing, which led him to a startling conclusion, at least to any strict Darwinians: “Despite over 40 years of intensive research on this species, there is not a single study demonstrating any adaptive value for female-female sexual behavior in Japanese macaques.” In other words, the females appear to be having sex with other females simply because they derive pleasure from it.

Male bighorn sheep. Mammalogist Valerius Geist noticed frequent homosexual sex at his bighorn sheep field site in the 1960s but avoided publishing those findings for years.

Like the Edinburgh penguins, many animals are sexually monomorphic, meaning males and females are indistinguishable to human eyes. This makes it all too easy to map our own assumptions onto their sex lives — and to tell ourselves a false story about which actions are “natural” and which are not.

As recently as 1986, a Georgia sodomy law was upheld in the landmark Bowers v. Hardwick case, and the “unnaturalness” of the act was a crucial part of the majority’s opinion. Sodomy laws stayed on the books until 2003, when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional — aided by an amicus brief citing the research that had come out in the meantime documenting homosexual activity among animals.

We might have known about the sheer diversity of animal sexuality a long time ago if we, as a culture, had managed to lower our blinders. “We like to think we derive a lot of our ideas from the animal world, but it’s actually the opposite,” says Kota. “We put a lot of our ideas onto the animal world.” Now, we have begun to see a more complicated truth about animals — and also, perhaps, about ourselves.

Complete Article HERE!

Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity

Evidence from various sciences reveals that there are diverse ways of being male, female, or both. An anthropologist argues that embracing these truths will help humans flourish.

Despite myths of “pink” brains and “blue” brains, human brains are mosaics of what have stereotypically been characterized as male and female traits.

By

At the recent U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn triggered controversy when she asked Jackson to define the word “woman.” After Jackson declined, several Republican congresspeople chimed in with definitions for “woman” that ranged from dubious to shocking, including “the weaker sex,” “someone who has a uterus,” and “X chromosomes, no tallywhacker.”

Such notions haven’t evolved much since 1871, when naturalist Charles Darwin told the world that “man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than women, and has more inventive genius.” Most 19th- and 20th-century evolutionary theories (and theorists) asserted that evolution created two kinds of creatures—male and female—and individuals’ behavior and nature reflected this biological binary.

Today a chorus of scientific-sounding claims about “blue and pink” brains, testosterone, and male primate aggression are offered up as natural explanations for masculine and feminine behavior, along with gaps in pay, jobs, political and economic leadership, and sexuality. In the political and legal realms, the belief that biology creates two types of humans is invoked in a range of attempts to mandate and enforce how humans should behave.

These assertions and beliefs are wrong. In addition, the commitment to a simple binary view creates a fictitious template for a “battle of the sexes” that manifests in miseducation about basic biology, the denigration of women’s rights, the justifications of incel and “men’s rights” violence, and the creation of anti-transgender laws.

Science points to a more accurate and hopeful way to understand the biology of sex. By recognizing the true diversity of the human experience, humanity can embrace an expansive and multifaceted way of envisioning and experiencing human nature. This evidence-based outlook is not only far more interesting than the simplistic and incorrect “tallywhacker versus no tallywhacker” perspective, but also more conducive to respect and flourishing.

Starting at the most basic level of animal biology, there are multitudes of ways to be female or male or both. The oceans are filled with species of fish that change from one sex to another midlife, and some who change back again. There are invertebrate hermaphrodites and ladies-only lizards who reproduce by recombining their own chromosomes. In some mammals, females are brimming with testosterone and have large “penises.” In various fish and mammals, males do all the caretaking of infants. And in a variety of species, females are authoritarian, promiscuous, and—yes, Darwin—pugnacious.

Of course, there are patterned differences between females and males in many species. But there is far more diversity, complexity, and collaboration than most people realize. When one looks closer at the biology of sex in animals, including humans, it is clear that Darwin, biologist E.O. Wilson, geneticist Angus Bateman, and various Republican politicians are minimally way off base and mostly flat out wrong.

Man/woman and masculine/feminine are neither biological terms nor rooted exclusively in biology.

Sex, biologically, is not simply defined or uniformly enacted. In humans, having two X chromosomes or an X and a Y chromosome does not create binary bodies, destinies, or lives. If we could crawl into the womb with a fetus at about six to eight weeks of age, we’d see a few clusters of cells in the emerging body get nudges by DNA activity and start to generate new organs, including the clitoris and penis, labia and scrotum, ovaries and testes. All genitals are made from the exact same stuff. Since they have a few differing end functions, their final form is different. But there is a lot of overlap.

In fact, of the 140 million babies born last year, at least 280,000 did not fit into a clear penis versus labia model of sex determination. Genitals, hormone levels, and chromosomes are not reliable determinants of sex. There are, for example, people with XY chromosomes who have female characteristics, people with ambiguous genitalia, and women with testosterone levels outside the typical “female” range.

Biologically, there is no simple dichotomy between female and male. As I demonstrate in my book Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You, brains are no more “sexed” at birth than are kidneys and livers. Rather, brains are “mosaics” of characteristically female and male features.

Of course, there are clear bodily differences in capacities to give birth and lactate, and ranges of patterns in the development and distribution of body size, strength, and myriad other processes. But such patterns are mostly overlapping, and only a few are distributed in clear or functional dichotomies. Numerous studies have found that the differences between adult men and women are overhyped and largely influenced by the dynamics of biology and culture. Humans are naturenurtural—a fusion of nature and nurture.

For example, many explanations for differences between males and females rest on assumptions about the disparate evolved costs of reproduction between them. But human reproduction is more complex than two individuals having sex, then the female giving birth and taking care of the offspring. While today it is common in many societies for women to raise children on their own or with a male (who often does not contribute equally to child-rearing), this setup developed very recently in human history.

More than a million years ago, humans developed collaborative child care involving female and male relatives, as well as adults and children in the community.

There is massive evidence that the genus Homo (humans) evolved complex cooperative caretaking more than a million years ago, changing the patterns and pressures of our evolution. Such “alloparenting” practices are still widespread among many human groups, in which mothers and fathers, grandparents, other female and male relatives, and boys and girls in the community all help feed, teach, and care for children. This complex overlap in social and reproductive roles is exciting and hopeful. When it comes to raising kids, humans don’t come in two kinds. Rather, we evolved to be a collaborative and creative community.

The data-driven bottom line is that “man/woman” and “masculine/feminine” are neither biological terms nor rooted exclusively in biology. The lack of an explicit binary is especially evident in humans given the complex neurobiologies, life histories, and morphological dynamics in our species. There are many successful, biologically diverse ways to be human, and millions of people embody this diversity. Growing up human means growing up in a world of varying gender expectations, body types, reproductive options, family structures, and sexual orientations.

So, instead of listening to people who are misogynistic, sexist, or homo/transphobic; incels; or politicians who base their ideologies on a biological sex binary and myths about its evolution, we can and should be open to a serious understanding of biology and its better options for human flourishing. The simple male/female binary does not effectively express the normal range of being human. Understanding this and incorporating it into our education, lives, and laws offers better possibilities, greater equity, and more joy for human society.

Complete Article HERE!

Animal sexuality may not be as binary as we’re led to believe, according to new book

NPR’s Sacha Pfeiffer talks with Eliot Schrefer, author of Queer Ducks (And Other Animals): The Natural World of Animal Sexuality. It’s about how “natural sex” may not be as binary as some think.

SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:

At its worst, a nonfiction science book about animal sexuality could read like a dry biology textbook. But that’s not the kind of book Eliot Schrefer wrote. His book, called “Queer Ducks (And Other Animals): The Natural World Of Animal Sexuality,” is designed to be teenager-friendly, for one thing. It’s a young adult book filled with comics and humor and accessible science, and it’s filled with research on the diversity of sexual behavior in the animal world. Eliot Schrefer is with us to explain more. Welcome, Eliot.

ELIOT SCHREFER: Hi. I’m really happy to be here.

PFEIFFER: We’re glad to have you. I really liked the way you structured your book. It’s basically an animal per chapter, in a way. But you also have these wonderful illustrations. You have interviews with scientists. Tell us a little bit about how you decided to make it accessible because, again, you’re aiming for adolescents, as I understand it, in a nonfiction way, and they might be inclined to think nonfiction equals boring, dry textbook.

SCHREFER: Right. I sort of imagine, like, we’re kind of sitting in the science classroom, passing notes back and forth, and it even comes down to the doodles. There’s an artist, Jules Zuckerberg, who did a one-page comic for each of the animal species that we discuss. So it’s – the premise is that it’s an animal GSA.

PFEIFFER: A gender sexuality alliance meeting.

SCHREFER: That’s right. And so they’re each taking a turn introducing themselves. And so the bonobo takes a turn introducing how her family works, and then the doodlebug and the dolphin and so on.

PFEIFFER: Yeah, they’re really great. They make the book really accessible. As we said, every chapter basically tackles an animal and something about the sexuality of that animal. Do you have a favorite or one of your favorites that you could tell us about?

SCHREFER: Sure. Well, the hard part starting to write this book was figuring out which animals to focus on. The bonobos are famously promiscuous, and the majority of their sexual activity is between females. So I knew they had to be in there, is an early chapter.

PFEIFFER: What’s funny – well, what’s interesting about these animals are they – as you said, they’re very promiscuous. I mean, there’s almost this orgy-like way about how they behave sometimes.

SCHREFER: Yes, and what was so interesting in the early studies about bonobos – they’re really fairly new to science. We used to call them pygmy chimpanzees and just thought they were small chimps and that was it. And it wasn’t until the ’90s and the 2000s that we started really studying them. And sex, in particular same-sex sexual activity in bonobos, is a way to avoid conflict and to smooth over feelings after a conflict.

There was a really fascinating study where they gave honey, which is a really desirable food source, to a group of bonobos and to a group of chimpanzees and saw how they reacted differently. And chimpanzees, the strongest males grabbed the food source and handed it out to their allies. And then in the bonobos, they all circled the honey, and none of them touched it. And they all got very, very anxious about how this food was going to be split up. And then rather than starting eating, they started an orgy. They just all started having sex. And this is between males and males, males and females and females and females. And then once they were blissed out and calm, that’s when they started to eat this food. And chimps and bonobos are tied as our closest relative, so it’s a great metaphor for the two ways that we can also look at human nature.

PFEIFFER: There’s also a chapter that I found interesting about bulls. And a lot of bulls are used for breeding. They’re used to inseminate females. And sometimes, the bulls have to kind of get in the mood. The handlers help them get in the mood. And what’s interesting is they often bring in other males to do that, and it’s effective. And I thought that was very interesting. Tell us why you chose that example.

SCHREFER: Bovids are – have one of the largest percentages of same-sex sexual behavior within their populations. And it’s long been the ace card in the hand of cattle breeders to bring out a steer to get a bull excited in order to perform sexually. And in fact, there was one of the foremost sheep researchers, Valerius Geist, who studied bighorn sheep in the 1960s – he was in the wild observing these bighorns and saw that they basically live in entirely homosexual society until the age of 6 or 7. The males are off by themselves having frequent intercourse. And he didn’t publish on it. He wrote about this in his memoir years later because he couldn’t tolerate the idea that these – what he – quote, “magnificent beasts were queers.” And so he resisted publishing on that.

PFEIFFER: We mention that the book includes interviews you’ve done with scientists, these little question and answer exchanges. I really like those. They not only added to the science of the book, but it was interesting that these types of professionals exist. Could you tell us about one that you think is most noteworthy?

SCHREFER: Sure. I wanted to expand kids’ impression of who gets to do science, with gets in quotes there – that it’s not just old guys in white coats, right? There’s an upswell of young scientists who are doing some wonderful work around queer behavior and queer identities in animals.

So one person I spoke to was an ecologist who has transitioned genders, has – is still actively figuring out their place within the broader world and looked forward so much to the days when they could be just with their binoculars in the fields, mud up to their ankles, just staring at moose because at that moment, all these – the complicated navigation of all these identities just dropped away, and they were just part of nature. Like, they didn’t have to explain themselves to the animals, and the animals had no concept of judging or shaming anyone for the choices that they were making around their gender identity. And I found that so moving that there is some – there’s a peace to be found and a simplicity and an acceptance, a radical acceptance within nature.

PFEIFFER: Eliot, you’ve written in your book that you are well aware – these are your words – well aware that this book is bound to be controversial. But on the other hand, you also seem to be trying to assure young people out there that this is not controversial at all. It’s actually quite common in the animal world. Is that part of the message you’re trying to send?

SCHREFER: Yeah. I think there’s – you know, some people will say, well, there’s all sorts of things that animals do that humans oughtn’t to be doing – right? – that we shouldn’t cannibalize our partners after we have sex with them, that we shouldn’t be living on webs out in the wild, and that we can’t just cherry-pick which animal examples we choose to use. But that’s really getting the argument of the book backwards. I’m not trying to argue for human behaviors from certain – the ways that animals can behave. Instead, I’m trying to say that we can no longer argue that humans are alone in their queerness or in their LGBTQ identities – that instead, we are part of a millions of year tradition within the animal world of a varieties of approaches to sex and a ton of advantages that come around from it.

PFEIFFER: Eliot, you’ve written and you’ve said that you wished you had known this when you were younger. If you had known it, how do you think it would have changed how you felt about yourself?

SCHREFER: I think there’s a loneliness to human queerness, that there is this idea that it is something that happened recently to this species and that we are alone in it, and that queer people can find each other and find community with each other, and that that is the goal that they can – they should hope for when we are heavily integrated into the natural world. And that is the part of the message that I think is lost, and that LGBTQ behaviors and identities are absolutely natural.

PFEIFFER: That’s Eliot Schrefer. His new book is “Queer Ducks (And Other Animals).” Eliot, thank you.

SCHREFER: Thank you so much for having me.

Complete Article HERE!

Why does researching bisexuality matter?

Throwing all non-heterosexual people into one bucket means not all the letters of the rainbow alphabet have been able to shine.

By

The number of people who identify as queer in the UK Census has increased over the past few years. This trend is in particular driven by the rising number of LGBT+ identities among people aged 16 to 24 years. The most popular sexual identity within this emerging group is bisexual – the romantic and/or sexual attraction to more than one gender. Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows an increase from 0.7 per cent in 2015 to 1.1 per cent in 2019. Rather than a sudden new surge of bisexual desires, increased acceptance, legal protection and visibility are likely to be the cause of this increase.

But why should we count how many people are bi, or study what their experiences are? Research is young in this field, but we’re already seeing that tossing all queer identities into one research bucket renders the unique struggles of being bisexual invisible. For a start, it’s hard to even get an accurate sense of the exact number of British people who are bisexual. Many people who are attracted to people beyond one gender, shy away from the identity label ‘bisexual’. When it comes to research, this reluctance has led scientists to come up with alternative ways to capture and categorise sexuality.

One of the most common tools used is The Kinsey Scale. First published in 1948 by biologist Dr Alfred Kinsey, it is used to place people on a spectrum of sexual attraction between entirely heterosexual and entirely homosexual, using a scale from 0 to 6. It also includes ‘X’ for those who are asexual. It was so successful that it is still the single most popular scale for classifying sexuality. It’s often what people are indirectly referring to when they say, “Aren’t we all a bit bi?”

When YouGov surveys conducted in 2019 used questions that mimicked The Kinsey Scale, researchers found at least a third of people aged 18 to 24 say that they are attracted to multiple genders. A startling figure compared to the 1 per cent reporting to the ONS. Only with research can we cut through the reluctance people have to say “I am bisexual”, and find out whether those attracted to multiple genders need more support than those who aren’t.

Since social scientists and other researchers have started to analyse the B, we have begun to understand the struggles that uniquely endanger bi people. Research shows us that bi women are hypersexualised, and stereotypes that see bi women as promiscuous sexual playthings feed into people’s existing rape myths.

Accordingly, studies have found that bisexual women are significantly more likely to be raped, repeatedly sexually assaulted, and to be the victims of intimate partner abuse than lesbian and heterosexual women. Had this research homogenised all women into one group, we might never have known that the stereotypes affecting bi women specifically place them at far greater risk of sexual victimisation.

Man holding bisexual flag

A different cluster of toxic assumptions awaits bi men. Bisexual men are seen as lying, to themselves and others, because they are thought to be gay. And, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, bi men were also seen as murderers in disguise, catching AIDS when having sex with men and giving it their female partners. This left many bisexual men isolated and alone, failed by educational campaigns that rarely moved beyond gay spaces.

We need to acknowledge the unique needs of bi people, including a specific focus on bi men. If we don’t, we fail a huge amount of the population. Armed with bi-specific research, we stand a better chance of winning the fight back against the societal biases and misconceptions that hold bisexual people down.

As a young researcher, I didn’t know anyone else who was bisexual in my field, or, for that matter, in any field. It was rarely mentioned, not even in lectures specifically on sex and sexuality. When I graduated with my PhD in 2012, I had no idea how useful my background in criminal psychology would come to be when I turned my gaze to studying bisexuality. For my new book, Bi: The Hidden Culture, History And Science Of Bisexuality, I have found and spoken to researchers across the globe and in various disciplines who are all fighting for change.

I want the world to be a safer place for people like me. The best way that we can achieve that is to visibly support bi people. Let’s not allow the ‘B’ slip into the shadows of its colourful siblings.

Complete Article HERE!

When Sex and Gender Collide

Studies of transgender kids are revealing fascinating insights about gender in the brain

By Kristina R. Olson

  • The TransYouth Project is an ongoing research study following more than 300 transgender and gender-nonconforming kids for 20 years to learn how their gender identity develops.
  • Results so far show that trans children have just as firm a sense of their own gender as nontrans kids at very early ages, both when asked directly and when tested. Furthermore, trans kids follow different trajectories than children who simply prefer toys and clothes associated with the opposite gender.
  • In addition to helping uncover the roots of gender, early results of these studies suggest that trans kids who are supported through early social transitions have strong mental health and self-esteem.

On arrival at a friend’s house for dinner one night in the fall of 2008, I joined the evening’s youngest guest, five-year-old Noah, who was playing on the couch. Little did I know he would single-handedly change the course of my career.

As a professor of developmental psychology, hanging out at the kids’ table is not unusual for me. I study how children think about themselves and the people around them, and some of my keenest insights have come from conversations like this one. After some small talk, I saw Noah glance around the room, appear to notice that no one was looking and retrieve something from inside his pocket. The reveal was slow but the result unmistakable: a beloved set of Polly Pocket dolls.

Over the next few years I got to know Noah well and learned more about his past (all names of children here are pseudonyms to protect their privacy). Noah’s parents had first noticed that he was different from his brother in the preschool years. He preferred female playmates and toys more commonly associated with girls, but his parents were unfazed. As he got older, Noah grew out his previously short hair and replaced his fairly gender-neutral wardrobe with one that prominently featured Twinkle Toes—shoes that lit up in pink as he stepped. Unlike many similar kids, Noah’s family, friends and school fully accepted him. They even encouraged him to meet other kids like himself, boys who flouted gender norms. Along with the other adults in Noah’s life, I couldn’t help but wonder: What did Noah’s behavior mean? Was he gay? Could he just be a kid who paid less attention to gender norms than most? At the time I had no idea that these questions would soon guide my scientific research.

Life for Noah started to change when he hit third and fourth grade. Noah recently explained how at this time, it became increasingly apparent that although people accepted his preferences and befriended him nonetheless, the way he saw himself—as a girl—was at odds with the way others saw him. When people used his name and male pronouns, he realized that they thought of him as a boy. Noah remembers that this awareness made him increasingly unhappy—a feeling that had been rare just a few years earlier. According to his mom, previously cheerful and high-spirited Noah became sad and melancholy. This is when his family, after consulting with local therapists, reached a big decision that had been in the making for years. Noah came out as transgender, and accordingly Noah’s friends, family and school community were asked to use a new name, Sarah, and to refer to Sarah as a girl.

Fourteen-year-old Sarah, photographed at home, knew from a young age that she was a girl rather than the boy she seemed to be at birth.

At this point I had been studying developmental psychology for a decade, mostly looking into how young children think about the social categories—race, gender, social class—around them. In my free time, I looked for research about kids such as Sarah. Not a single quantitative study had investigated young children who had “switched” gender. (“Sex” refers to the biological categories male and female, whereas “gender” references one’s identification with the social and cultural attributes and categories traditionally attached to each sex.) At that time nearly all adults who were transgender had transitioned much later in life, and almost no one had supported their early gender nonconformity (their desire to express preferences or behaviors that defy societal expectations for their sex). I wondered what we could learn about gender from such young pioneers as Sarah. What was the impact of transitioning on children’s mental health and identity? What would this decision mean for their future?

How We Learn Gender

When most people hear about trans children, they are surprised. How could a three-year-old have such a clear sense of gender identity? People frequently compare early-identifying trans children with those who go through phases of believing they are cats or dinosaurs or who have imaginary friends. They use this comparison as evidence that no young child knows his or her identity or what is real or not real. Yet decades of work on gender development suggests these are precisely the ages at which nearly all kids are coming to understand their own and others’ gender identities.

In Western cultures (where most of this research has been done), within the first year of life infants begin to distinguish people by sex, seeing individuals as either male or female. By about 18 months toddlers begin to understand gendered words such as “girl” or “man” and associate those words with sex-matched faces. By 24 months children know of sex stereotypes (such as associating women with lipstick), and before their third birthday nearly all kids label themselves and others with gender labels that match their sex.

During the preschool years, large numbers of young people go through what gender researchers May Ling Halim of California State University, Long Beach, and Diane Ruble of New York University call the “pink frilly dress stage”: most girls become obsessed with frilly princess dresses or similarly “gendered” clothing, whereas many boys prefer superhero gear or formal wear and actively avoid pink. Around this time children also often exhibit strong preferences for the company of same-sex friends, engage in activities stereotypically associated with their sex and show a developing understanding that their sex is an enduring quality—believing that girls develop into women and boys into men.

Through the elementary school years, most children continue to associate themselves strongly with their sex group when asked both directly and indirectly. One experiment involves asking young participants to sort photographs of children on a computer screen into “boys” and “girls” while categorizing a set of words as either “me” words (like “me” and “myself”) or “not me” words (like “they” and “them”). Researchers measure how quickly kids can make these categorizations when “boys” and “me” share one response key and “girls” and “not me” share another, compared with how quickly they can make the opposite pairings (“girls” with “me” and “boys” with “not me”). Past studies have found that an overwhelming majority of girls are faster at pairing “girls” with “me” and boys are faster at pairing “boys” with “me.” Although scientists debate which aspects of development are innate or culturally constructed, or a combination of both, and not every child goes through the same gender pathway, most—including those children raised in families who vary in their parenting style, political beliefs, and racial and ethnic group membership—show the pattern we have described. And most parents, teachers and other adults never give it a second thought—except when kids start asserting that their gender is not what others expect it to be.

Early Differences

When I began the TransYouth Project in 2013, I wanted to understand whether, when and why young people such as Sarah do and do not behave like their peers in terms of their early gender development. The TransYouth Project is an ongoing study of hundreds of transgender and gender-nonconforming children. We focus on kids in the U.S. and Canada who are three to 12 years old when they begin the study, and we plan to follow them for 20 years.

What has been most surprising to me about our findings so far are the myriad ways in which trans kids’ early gender development is remarkably similar to that of their peers. That is, children like Sarah look like other girls at every age but nothing like boys on measures of gender identity and preferences. Similarly, transgender boys (children who identify as boys but at birth were considered to be girls) perform like other boys on our tests. For example, one common observation in the preschool years is a strong hypergendered appearance—girls who love princess dresses; boys who avoid pink like it’s the plague. We find the same thing in our youngest transgender children. The degree of their preferences for stereotypical clothes, as well as their tendency to prefer to befriend those of their self-identified gender and the degree to which they see themselves as members of their gender group, is statistically indistinguishable from their peers’ responses on the same measures throughout the childhood years.

Charlie prefers clothes and toys associated with girls but identifies as a boy. He is pictured here at age 10.

Furthermore, when predicting their identities into the future, trans girls see themselves becoming women and trans boys feel that they will be men, just as other girls and boys do. Even when we present children with more indirect or implicit measures of gender identity—the measures that assess reaction times rather than children’s more explicit words and actions—we have found that trans girls see themselves as girls and trans boys see themselves as boys, suggesting that these identities are held at lower levels of conscious awareness. All this research combines to show that transgender identities in even very young children are surprisingly solid and consistent across measures, contradicting popular beliefs that such feelings are fleeting or that children are simply pretending to be the opposite gender.

The Roots of Gender

But where does the feeling of gender come from in the first place? The science is still far from conclusive. Because of how early this sense of identity can emerge, researchers have been looking for genetic and neuroanatomical signs in transgender people. One approach scientists often use in studying genetics is to look at twins. A major difference between identical and fraternal twins is that the former share more of their genetic material than the latter. If researchers find more agreement in transgender identity among identical twins than in fraternal twins, they infer that genetics play some role. And in fact, this is exactly what early studies are finding (although identical twins may also share more aspects of their socialization and environment). For example, in one 2012 review of the literature, Gunter Heylens of Ghent University in Belgium and his colleagues looked at 44 sets of same-sex twins in which at least one twin identified as transgender. They found that in nine of the 23 identical twin pairs, both siblings were transgender, whereas in no case among the 21 same-sex fraternal twin pairs were both twins transgender, suggesting transgender identity has some genetic underpinning. Despite these results, however, which particular genetic variations are involved is an open question.

Similarly, although some neuroscience studies have shown that brain structures of trans people resemble those of individuals with the same gender identity, rather than people with the same sex at birth, these findings have often involved small samples and have not yet been replicated. Further complicating interpretation of neuroscience results is the fact that brains change in response to experience, so even when differences appear, scientists do not know whether structural or functional brain differences cause the experience of a particular gender identity or reflect the experience of gender identity. Muddying the already murky waters, neuroscientists continue to debate whether even among people who are not transgender, there are reliable sex (or gender) differences in brains [see “Is There a ‘Female’ Brain?”]. Thus, whereas the topic is an active line of work in many research laboratories around the world, definitive conclusions about genetic and neural correlates of gender identity remain elusive.

Perhaps the most critical questions about transgender children, however, are about their well-being. Transgender adults and teens who did not go through the early social transition of kids such as Sarah and who were often rejected by peers and even their own families tend to have highly elevated rates of anxiety and depression. Estimates suggest that more than 40 percent of these largely unsupported trans teens and adults will attempt suicide. Many families like Sarah’s report that these heartbreaking statistics are why they supported their children’s early transitions.

My colleagues and I are finding—both in reports from parents and from kids themselves—that trans youth who make the social transition at a young age are doing remarkably well. They have depression rates comparable to their peers and only slightly elevated rates of anxiety. They also show very strong self-esteem. Whether these indicators of mental health stay strong as our cohort of trans children moves into the teen years remains to be seen, and certainly our all-volunteer sample is unlikely to be fully representative of all trans children alive today. Yet paired with work suggesting that interventions in adolescence (that involve not only social transitions but also hormonal therapy) are associated with improved mental health, these findings suggest that the high rates of depression, anxiety and suicide seen in earlier studies are not inevitable. Instead, as the world becomes more educated about transgender people, as rejection and bullying decrease, and as these youth receive support and intervention at earlier ages, we are optimistic that mental health risks will decrease.

“Pink Boys” and Tomboys

The first question I typically get when talking about transgender kids is something like, “Are you saying tomboys are actually transgender?” or “I used to be a boy who loved princess dresses. Are you suggesting I was transgender?” Of course, not all children who defy sex stereotypes as Sarah did are transgender. In fact, I would venture to say that most of them are not.

Sarah’s decision to transition genders was made in elementary school. Sarah is shown with her parents here.

One such kid is Charlie. On the surface Charlie seemed a lot like Sarah early in life. Both were assumed to be boys at birth, and both showed signs by the preschool years that they were different. As with Sarah, Charlie loved all things feminine. His mom recalls that by age two, Charlie loved pink sparkly clothing and would put a towel over his head pretending it was hair. Much like Sarah’s family, Charlie’s family introduced him to other boys who loved feminine stuff. And over the years some of these children, like Sarah, socially transitioned. But Charlie did not. I recently asked Charlie about his decision not to transition. He explained that his family (sometimes with the help of a therapist) spent a lot of time talking about social transitions and made it clear that they were onboard if that was what he wanted. Charlie said he considered this possibility in the back of his mind for several years but ultimately decided that although he unabashedly liked stereotypically “girl” things (in fact the very day I interviewed him, Charlie was wearing pink shorts, a purple T-shirt and a pink scarf to school) and even if he occasionally uses a girl’s name at camp, at the end of the day Charlie feels that he is a boy. As his mom explained, Charlie said that what he really wanted was for the world to accept him as he is—to let him wear what he wanted to wear and do what he wanted to do. But he did not truly feel he was a girl.

My work with children such as Charlie is ongoing, but preliminary data from others suggest that distinctive developmental trajectories may differentiate Sarah and Charlie. For instance, the degree to which a child gravitates to toys and clothes associated with the opposite gender may distinguish kids who ultimately identify as transgender from those who do not—on average, children like Sarah show even more gender nonconformity than children like Charlie. Other studies have suggested that the way kids talk about their gender identity—feeling you are a girl versus feeling that you wish the world was okay with your being a feminine boy (what Charlie’s mom calls a “pink boy”)—predicts the different paths of children like Sarah versus Charlie.

Researchers are also increasingly recognizing and studying people with nonbinary identities. Put simply, these are individuals who do not feel as if they are boys or girls, men or women, nor do they feel fully masculine or feminine. Instead many nonbinary people fall somewhere in the middle of a spectrum from masculine to feminine. To date, our research team has worked with several children who see themselves this way, but this group is not yet large enough from which to draw any strong conclusions.

What is undoubtedly true is that scientists have much to learn about children such as Sarah and Charlie. What does it mean to have a sense of yourself as a boy or a girl or something else? What makes a child more or less likely to identify that way? And how can we help all kids to be comfortable with themselves? Finding answers is especially difficult because gender is defined by culture, which constantly changes. In 1948, for instance, only 32 percent of adults believed women should wear slacks in public. Certainly feminine boys and masculine girls are not new; they are widely recognized in many indigenous cultures.

Today 14-year-old Sarah and 13-year-old Charlie are self-confident, smart and hardworking teens. Sarah plays piano, varsity field hockey and recently took up track. Charlie plays in a band and performs in theater. Both kids are popular and spend more of their time worrying about doing well in school and the complexities of adolescent social networks than about their gender. Both look to the future, excited about the possibilities that await them in college and beyond. Sarah says she wants to raise children with her future husband and aspires to make the world better for trans young people like herself. Charlie has dreams of moving to New York City to perform on Broadway. Both teens hope one day kids like them will be accepted for who they are regardless of the gender labels they use. In that hope, surely all of us can agree.

Complete Article HERE!

Why Do Some People Cry After Sex?

The hardcore crash of emotions after sex is not as bizarre or uncommon as many might think.

by Arman Khan

After Zohra, a 28-year-old writer, had sex with her husband a few days after their wedding last year, she couldn’t stop tears from streaming down her face.

It wasn’t their first time having sex – they’d been together for ten years. But for some inexplicable reason, she told VICE, the post-copulation tears became part of their sex life after having tied the knot.

At first, her partner was confused by the sudden burst of emotion. “What happened?” he’d asked her, worried that he’d inadvertently hurt her.

It was all perfect, she’d assure him, unable to pinpoint what she was really feeling apart from a general sense of being overwhelmed.

“We all live so many lies outside the bed,” she told VICE. “But now, it just feels like this experience is special, that he will have this unique connection with me and me alone. I’m not sure if passionate is the right word or if it’s even possible to come up with the right word to describe the intensity of that experience.”

Experts have explained this kind of emotional reaction after sex as postcoital dysphoria (PCD), defined as feeling tearful or sad after otherwise satisfactory or even great consensual sex. According to a study on PCD by the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, nearly 41 percent of men reported experiencing PCD at some point in their lifetime and nearly 4 percent of people said that they cry after sex on a regular basis.  Another study suggests nearly half of all women experience post-coital crying at least once in their lives, with some reporting (often inexplicable) tears during or after sex several times per month.

Neuropsychologist Jasdeep Mago told VICE that we often manifest our “most easily accessible emotion” in moments of vulnerability – and lying bare with another individual is often a deeply vulnerable act. You are going into an agreement to share each other’s deepest desires, to be seen naked, to be loved, wanted and fulfilled – making vulnerability a core component of our sexuality.

“Many people actually end up laughing when they hear bad news or do something emotional. They are obviously not literally happy in that moment but it’s their most easily accessible and used emotion, which surfaces in moments of vulnerability,” said Mago. “For people whose easily accessible emotion is crying, myself included, you will notice they can break down even in the middle of an argument.”

In societies where sex is still widely considered taboo, explained Mago, actually having sex can itself be an overwhelming experience for many, the enormity of it resulting in an unexpected rush of tears.

This was the case with Rituparna, a 24-year-old content strategist. She was 18 when she first cried after sex. At that age, she said, both she and her partner were not equipped with the tools to navigate her emotional reaction. But years of therapy and self-work helped her understand her emotions and reactions better.

“Growing up in a conservative family in a small town in eastern India, there was a lot of shame associated with sex,” she told VICE. “I also went through some sexually traumatic experiences as a child. So, now, when I’m able to have safe and consensual sex, I cry out of gratitude for deserving a space where my pleasure matters and where I know I’ll be treated like a human being.”

In some cases, experts found that women experiencing postpartum depression may also cry after sex as they experience hormonal fluctuations. Rituparna said that while some might explain this as an interplay of hormones such as oxytocin and dopamine, for her, crying after sex is essentially a cathartic experience.

“It’s almost an otherworldly space for me, and I approach it from a position of great respect,” she said. “So far, my partners have been very understanding whenever I’ve cried. In some instances, they became vulnerable too.”

In the queer space, trusting your flings and hookups with a vulnerable reaction after sex is not a common experience, according to Saurabh, a 32-year-old filmmaker. Whenever he felt like crying after sex, he waited for his partner to leave the room first. 

“The first time I cried, it was from sheer exhaustion,” he told VICE. “I didn’t know why I wanted so much sex and why I had to be such a sexual person. It all became too much for me and I broke down. But I couldn’t cry in front of him because I don’t expect strangers to process or even understand a visceral and emotional outburst.”

Asma, a 24-year-old advertising manager, has often felt tears well up after hooking up with strangers. 

“I ask myself: Is this how life is going to be? Will I always have these temporary flings? What value will this add to my life? I let it all build up even during the course of sex and I ultimately break down.”

Asma has, on occasion, cried after sex with her previous boyfriends too. “I think that was about the insecurity I felt in those relationships.” Though her past relationships that were stable led to fewer instances of postcoital crying, a recent positive sexual experience led to tears too. “The fact that I could have his undivided attention for so long really overwhelmed me.”

Mago, the neuropsychologist, said that the feeling of being overwhelmed is a neutral one – it can swing either way, positive or negative.

“One of the reasons why people might get overwhelmed after sex and cry is when there is a mismatch between their expectations from sex and how it actually turns out,” she explained. “Sometimes, bad sex is a stark reminder of the systemic issues in a relationship too, and the crushing realisation can be overwhelming.”

Aastha Vohra, a sexuality and sexual wellness expert, told VICE that anxiety that surfaces during the act itself cannot be discounted when trying to understand why people cry after sex. 

“In many cases, the vulva owner may not have been sufficiently lubricated, and that can cause a lot of discomfort and anxiety that ultimately keeps building and ends up in crying,” she said. “[Consensual] sex is a channel for nearly all our emotions because we’re quite literally naked during the act. It allows you the safe space to express those anxieties and emotions because for many, that safe space might not exist anywhere else.”

Intimacy coach Pallavi Barnwal added that some people who cry after sex may also be the ones who exercise immense emotional self-control outside sex. And a lot can be understood by looking into one’s childhood too. 

“Sex is essentially a primal act that subconsciously takes us back to our earliest bonding experience, that with our parents,” she said. “Past scars and ghosts have a strange way of showing up when you least expect them to. If you are in an extramarital relationship, the guilt can also sometimes manifest in tears.”

In cases where certain positions, words or other apsects of sex evoke past sexual trauma that leads to postcoital tears, Barnwal suggested addressing the “root cause” with therapy.

Mago, the neuropsychologist, emphasized that crying after sex is not explicitly classified as a disorder, disease or syndrom. “Crying after sex in itself does not derail the healthy functioning of an individual,” she said. “Unless it does, in which case you must seek professional help.”

The way Barnwal sees it, the ambiguity and the wide range of experiences surrounding the phenomenon of crying after sex should not surprise us. It boils down to the fact that sex is a multi-layered realm where things don’t immediately have to make sense. 

“We must understand that all sex is essentially two sets of competing truths – pain and pleasure,” she said. “It all depends on how you navigate it and how your partner supports you during the process. If you are the one witnessing the person you’ve had sex with break down, then understand that this is nothing scary or bizarre. Most of the time, it’s not even about you. Just hold them, cuddle them, and embrace sexual vulnerability as a totally normal thing.”

Complete Article HERE!

Inside the push to study sex in space

NASA is weirdly prudish when it comes to doin’ it in the final frontier. These researchers want to change that.

By Mark Hay

Late last year, a team of five Canadian academics published a proposal calling upon major space organizations “to embrace a new discipline” of study. This new discipline, they argued, may prove vital to the success of planned efforts to push deeper into space — and potentially build off-world human settlements. They called this supposedly game-changing new field of research “space sexology: the scientific study of extraterrestrial intimacy and sexuality.”

In other words: doin’ it in space.

“Rocket science may take us to outer space,” the proposal’s authors added in a related article. “But it will be human relationships that determine if we thrive as a spacefaring civilization.”

It’s easy to brush this proposal off as the frivolous musing of horny academics overstating the importance of their specialties in hopes of building a playground in which they can pursue their pet interests freely. But if you pick through the text, it actually lays out a simple yet compelling argument.

If we ever truly want to establish off-world settlements — and people like Elon Musk do aim to do just that by 2050 — then we need informed plans for managing relationships and reproduction in those outposts. Sexual intimacy is vital for most people’s physical and mental health, so astronauts on multi-year missions may want, or even need, to maintain some kind of sex life while in space. We know that space environments can seriously warp any number of bodily processes, and by extension that sex and intimacy in space will not work like they do on earth. Yet there has never been a concentrated, dedicated effort to hash out the details of how to manage these core aspects of human life beyond our little blue orb.

Maria Santaguida, a psychologist at Concordia University and one of the proposal’s co-authors, notes that she and her colleagues are not the first to highlight the importance of studying sex in space. A handful of researchers spread across several continents and disciplines have been pushing this point for at least 30 years. Over the last few years especially, concerns about our collective lack of knowledge in this field have started to catch on with the public as well. A few artists have even created eye-catching speculative designs and prototypes of contraptions meant to help astronauts get down in the void in an effort to get people thinking about the issue.

Yet major space exploration and research players have historically dismissed these piecemeal calls to action, often aggressively and even derisively, as irrelevant to their work. Advocates of space sex research chalk this up to a mixture of limited bandwidth leading to the prioritization of other pressing concerns, and a pervasive culture of sexual conservatism created by the structure and funding mechanisms behind most agencies.

“But change is happening,” Santaguida told Mic. Change that might open avenues for a fleshed-out proposal like her team’s to attract concentrated support, and gain some traction with space agencies, as well as private industry players.

Everything We (Don’t) Know About Sex In Space

Since the early days of human space exploration in the mid-20th century, we’ve recognized that low gravity environments have major effects on almost every human bodily system — like blood flow, muscle and skeletal strength, and even hormonal balances. We’ve also recognized that, without the protection of earth’s magnetic field, people in space are exposed to wildly high levels of ambient radiation that, over time, can mess with our bodies and DNA, potentially leading to a host of conditions ranging from radiation sickness to cancer to nerve degeneration.

Early space biology understandably put its focus on figuring out how to keep astronauts alive in this hostile environment, and how to rehabilitate them once they return to earth. These early space missions were also so intense, brief, and cramped — usually just a couple of people in a tiny metal can hurtling into a brutal and unknown vacuum — that there was no reason to consider sex.

But in the 1980s, after the Soviet Union launched the Mir, a groundbreaking space station that allowed astronauts to remain in space for months on end, space scientists, including some on the United States National Research Council, started to raise concerns about the effects of long-term space travel on sexual and reproductive health. Reports from the time stress how little we knew about the effects of space environments on fertility and sexual functioning. And when the USSR started running co-ed missions, also in the 80s, public commentators got to musing in the press about the prospect of sex in space: Was it happening? What would it be like? Would it even be safe?

Over the last decade or so, the increasingly real prospect of space tourism and settlement efforts has fueled a new burst of popular interest in extraterrestrial sex. Articles, conferences, and even TV specials on the nitty-gritty details of how doing it in space might or might not work now abound. They detail how, in low gravity environments, any thrust or push might send two people flying away from each other. How low gravity’s effects on hormone levels and blood flow might take a toll on people’s sex drive, and make it hard to get physically aroused. How liquids pool up for lack of gravity, potentially leading to giant globs of sweat and cum floating about.

In the 80s, NASA reportedly dismissed concerns about the effects of space on sexual health as “professional carping” by biologists — a big stink over nothing. “They believe the animal studies in space that some scientists have called for are difficult and uninformative,” Celia Hooper of United International Press wrote in a 1988 expose on the topic. A waste of cargo space.

“Research on human intimacy and sexuality in space — including their socio-cultural and psychological components — is quasi-nonexistent.” – Simon Dubé, co-author of the space sexology proposal

Eventually, the agency changed its tune. A NASA representative told Mic it and its partners have “studied the basic science of reproductive physiology in several species including fruit flies, worms, snails, jellyfish, fish, frogs, chicken (bird) eggs, and rodents. Other research studies have also been completed using bull and human sperm.” Several other space agencies and external research groups have conducted their own studies on space’s effects on sexual and reproductive health, and academics have just started to compile comprehensive reviews of their findings.

However, one review published in 2018 by the scientists Alex Layendecker and Shawna Pandya argues that the data generated by these experiments “are scant, often conflicting, and do not provide enough information to definitively say whether or not [reproductive] physiological processes can safely and successfully occur in a space environment.” Notably, data collected from animal models may not apply to human subjects; data collected during short experiments in one specific space environment may not tell us anything about the effects of long-term missions in an environment with a unique gravity and radiation profile; and data on one stage of reproduction doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about space’s effects on another stage of reproduction.

“If you were to take reproduction and break it down into all of its various parts,” the space medicine expert Kris Lehnhardt told National Geographic, also in 2018, “there’s never really been a dedicated scientific program that looked at how each of these steps is affected.” At best, we can hazard sporadic guesses at the effects of any given space environment on people’s reproductive organs, on the process of conception and gestation, on a newborn child.

And Simon Dubé, another Concordia University psychologist and co-author of the space sexology proposal, adds that all this research only tackles one narrow sliver of human sexual experiences: reproduction. “Research on human intimacy and sexuality in space — including their socio-cultural and psychological components — is quasi-nonexistent,” he told Mic.

“No research has explored intimate relationships, nor the human experience of sexual functions and wellbeing, in space or space analogues, or how any of this can affect crew performance.”

Why Space Agencies Don’t Want To Talk About Sex

Whenever reporters or researchers push space agencies to talk about not just reproductive health but the act of sex itself — much less intimate relationships — they usually just clam up.

When Mic asked NASA for comment on the sex-and-relationship-specific concerns and research priorities outlined in the Canadian academics’ space sexology proposal, a representative said they had “not reviewed this proposal, so it would not be appropriate for us to comment on it.”

No other agencies responded to requests for comment.

Some observers argue space agencies only attend to, or engage with questions on, reproductive health because they aren’t interested in off-world tourism or settlement — just raw space science.

Sure, they’re planning ambitious exploration projects, like NASA’s Project Artemis, which will involve prolonged stays on the moon, and then eventual human travel to Mars. These missions could leave small teams of astronauts in space for years on end. But NASA and other big space agencies have reportedly long feared that intimate relationships could jeopardize crew stability, rather than contribute to astronauts’ mental and physical wellbeing. So, they’ve traditionally called for abstinence on missions.

“We are primarily concerned with ensuring crew members’ health and safety in space for long periods of time,” the NASA representative told Mic. “Our Human Research Program is working to mitigate the five hazards of human spaceflight and researching ways to help crews work together and remain emotionally prepared during their journey.”

“Although astronauts are held as professionals, long term missions beginning at two and a half years open possibilities for conception.” – Seth Barbrow, U.S. military physician

“Should a future need for more in-depth study on reproductive health in space be identified, NASA would take the appropriate steps.” But, they added, “we are not currently seeking proposals or considering a dedicated field or project office on this topic.”

Periodically, rumors circulate about astronauts breaking tacit no-sex rules. Notably, in 1992 two NASA astronauts secretly fell in love and got married during training, told their superiors about their relationship when it was too late to alter their mission, and went to space together, spurring a ton of tabloid gossip. Tellingly, astronauts usually respond to these rumors with either offhand dismissal, or borderline indignation at the thought that they’d ever consider having sex in space, and by so doing supposedly jeopardizing their missions. “We are a group of professionals,” NASA’s Alan Poindexter told reporters back in 2010 when asked if any hot action went down during a two-week mission to the International Space Station. “We treat each other with respect, and we have a great working relationship. Personal relationships are not … an issue.”

“We don’t have them and we won’t.”

Valeri Polyakov, a Russian cosmonaut who spent 437 days in space in the ‘90s, did keep a diary in which he noted that state psychologists recommended he take a sex doll with him to deal with any urges he might have, and suggested that the Mir had a small collection of dirty movies. But he rejected this recommendation, and said that his horniness just faded after he ignored it.

Several doctors argue that banking on abstinence during long-term space missions is a naïve position to take — including at least one United States military physician. In a 2020 policy memo, Seth Barbrow of the Military Academy wrote: “Although astronauts are held as professionals, long term missions beginning at two and a half years open possibilities for conception.”

However, agency critics often argue that this is not pure naivete. Willful sexual ignorance, after all, is out of character for a group of serious scientists.

Instead, these critics and skeptics believe the agencies’ stony silence on sex stems from the fact that they all rely primarily on state funding. NASA actually allegedly censored images of human nudity on several probes sent into space, which were meant to show any aliens who might encounter them what humans look like, because of concerns about how the public, and Congress, would react to them sending porn into space.

“All it takes is one member of Congress complaining about smut to torpedo future funding,” says Jon Lomberg, a space artist who worked on those probes. “Why would NASA risk it?”

The Free Market Fails Again

Whatever their reasoning, if the major space agencies are not going to explore sex in space, some argue that private space organizations, like Musk’s SpaceX or Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, might pick up the torch. After all, they’re not only free to pursue their own interests — they’re also the main forces pushing for the creation of space tourism ventures and off-world settlements.

But these private organizations have been awfully quiet about sex and intimacy in space as well. Musk notably brushed off concerns about the effects of space on any aspect of human biology, arguing that his job is just to work out the hardware of how to get to Mars cheaply, quickly, and reliably. Mars One, the defunct organization that planned to settle Mars, also waved away questions about sex by saying that it’d give every settler ample contraception, tell them about the known risks of space environments for sex, reproductive health, and child development, and see what happened.

Neither Blue Origin, SpaceX, or any other private space venture Mic reached out to replied to a request for comment.

“Everyone is focused on the hardware” that will get us farther into space, Lehnhardt said back in 2018 of these sorts of ventures. “And the hardware is great, but in the end it’s the squishy meat-sack that messes everything up. Ignoring the human system, if you will, in future plans and designs is only going to lead to failure,” no matter how impressive a firm’s hardware may be.

Academics, either independent or ensconced in universities, also tend to have more freedom to explore subjects that the big space agencies might not want or be able to work on themselves. After all, they’ve been the ones leading the sporadic charge to improve research on sex in space for decades now. But scholars have their own funding and bandwidth limitations — and often lack access to actual space resources, forcing them to run experiments in rough analogue simulations of actual space flights, which inherently limits the potential of their research. The team behind the recent space sexology proposal note that while they want to connect the discipline to a major space agency they also think it’s important to build ties to universities, private corporations, and anyone else who might have relevant resources.

“We need to bring everyone to the table to holistically address the transdisciplinary challenges of human eroticism in space, and facilitate wellbeing, as we journey to the final frontier,” says Judith Lapierre, a Université Laval health expert, and one of the co-authors of the proposal.

The Future of Space Sexology

So, how is a simple proposal to create a new field of study going to turn this tide of systematic neglect and ignorance? Why does this team of academics believe their appeal will gain traction with major space agencies when decades of (admittedly ad hoc) space sex advocacy has failed?

Dave Anctil, a scientific ethics expert at the Collège Jean De Brébeuf and one of the proposal’s co-authors, says it all comes down to calendars. The closer space agencies and private companies get to launching their big projects, he argues, the harder it’s become for them to ignore all the human aspects of these ventures that they’ve long shunted to the side. They may not want to acknowledge sex and intimacy. But it’s slowly shoving its way into their faces.

“More and more researchers around the globe and people working in the space sector recognize that addressing human intimate and sexual needs in space is one of the keys to unlocking our long-term expansion into the universe,” Santaguida told Mic.

“There has been great positive interest in our proposal from the media, the public, and some people working in the space sector,” adds Dubé. “We hope to leverage this interest to make innovative collaborations and science happen in the near future.”

These may sound like the unduly optimistic platitudes of activists. But there are faint signs that the team may be onto something. Notably, NASA seems far more receptive to questions about sex and intimacy in space than they have been in the past — when they might have just ignored queries like Mic’s. There’s also some paper trail evidence that people within NASA are trying to push the agency to funnel money into ambitious new sexual health projects.

Of course, even if the Canadian team’s proposal to create a new field does gain traction as they hope, moving from a tentative framework to a living, breathing, and productive project will be a long, complicated process. Notably, the academics and their allies will have to figure out how to design robust experiments, and perform them ethically, in space or space-like environments.

But Dubé is confident that they’ll figure something out, so long as they can get enough dedicated resources for space sexology to thrive. After all, space science has always been about taking big swings, and then just kinda making them work. And, Lapierre adds, as humans push into space, “it would be nothing short of unethical to let these roadblocks stand in the way of knowledge.”

Complete Article HERE!

The Psychology of Love

How we love one another varies greatly

Like hunger, thirst, sleep and sex, love is essential for human survival. It can often feel so primal and mysterious that it may be hard for some of us to define. For thousands of years, we’ve tried to understand how love works by studying it and writing about it in songs and poetry. We’ve seen love play out so many times in movies and television shows that we find ourselves time and time again rooting for our favorite couples and wishing to live out our own wildest dreams.

But if love has the ability to inspire entire nations to act in the name of love — after all, Helen of Troy was said to launch a thousand ships based on her beauty alone — can we ever hope to understand the breadth and depth of true love and all of its qualities?

Ahead of Valentine’s Day, psychologist Susan Albers, PsyD, breaks down the various types of love based on one popular psychological theory, how we move between different stages of our relationships, and how love languages can impact the way we support each other when we need it most.

Different types of love

There are a number of theories that categorize the kinds of love we experience in our lives (and some that even stem as far back as the ancient Greeks). Dr. Albers points to Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love, in particular as one theory that’s inclusive and easy to understand no matter the kind of relationship you’re in.

Sternberg’s theory proposes that all relationships are fundamentally based on three key components that function as the three points of a relational triangle: intimacy, passion and commitment.

  • Intimacy is based on an emotional bond and a feeling of closeness and comfort.
  • Passion includes sexual and physical attraction and that feeling of romance.
  • Commitment is the decision or choice to love another person and the efforts that someone is willing to do to maintain that relationship.

“Attraction is more like a magnetic force you can feel,” says Dr. Albers. “When those fun butterfly feelings evolve into a warm sense of commitment and care for someone’s needs, this is a sign of love developing.”

There are eight kinds of love that can occur based on varying levels of each key component. Each kind of love is different enough that you might find yourself maintaining relationships in several categories, but sometimes, a single relationship will evolve over time, transitioning among the types along the way.

Non-love

This type of love is a bit self-explanatory. In this type of connection, you’re indifferent to the other person. There’s no passion, no intimacy and no need for commitment. This person may be someone you see on the street, an acquaintance or someone you know very casually.

Liking

This type of love is the basis for most friendships. In this category, you’re high on intimacy but there’s no passion or commitment. In this type of love, you’re more focused on the real close bond you share with someone else, so you strengthen that bond over similar qualities, interests or characteristics.

Infatuation

High in passion, but without intimacy or commitment, this is what most people think of when they have a crush or experience love at first sight. You may not know someone on a deeper level, but you’ll experience real physical changes like the feeling of butterflies in your stomach or a sense of anxiousness or a flush of desire whenever you see or think about the person you’re attracted to. “A lot of relationships start out this way and then, if they’re going to be lasting, they turn over into something more romantic,” says Dr. Albers.

Empty love

If you’re experiencing high levels of commitment, but you’re without passion or intimacy, this is called empty love. Sometimes, this can be the starting point in an arranged marriage or couples find themselves experiencing this type of love if they’re staying together for their kids or not financially stable enough to leave a relationship. “Unfortunately, I think I see empty love the most in counseling,” says Dr. Albers. “This can feel like a really difficult place for people because they feel kind of stuck. They want to build more intimacy or passion because it was there initially.”

Romantic love

This type of love may encompass a few kinds of relationships. High in passion and intimacy, but without commitment, you may fall into this type if you’re dating someone but you’re not quite exclusive. Friends with benefits fall into this category, too, especially if you’ve known someone for a while and have a close bond. “Maybe they’ve been burned in the past or maybe they’re divorced and afraid of recommitting,” says Dr. Albers. “Maybe they feel that spark but they’re unsure if this is someone they want to commit to.”

Companionate love

Think of this stage as an elevated form of liking: Maybe you’ve been friends for years or you’re best friends who rely on each other through thick and thin. With high levels of intimacy and commitment, but no passion, these are some of your deepest bonds that can often lead to a lifetime of connection.

Fatuous love

This type of love burns bright and fast. High in passion and commitment, but without intimacy, this is a swift-moving relationship that evolves from one stage to the next quite quickly. Maybe you’re comfortable moving in or getting married much sooner than most. Sexual attraction is a huge driver for this kind of relationship, but perhaps you don’t know each other on a deeper level than in other relationships.

“You feel a lot of sparks toward this person and you’re committed, but all of a sudden, you might start to realize that there’s no emotional connection,” explains Dr. Albers. “It’s hard to get out of this relationship because you’ve already tied yourself in.” And, when some relationships burn too bright too fast, they may burn out quickly, resulting in someone getting ghosted.

Consummate love

This is the kind of love that’s top tier, the one all the movies, books and songs try to capture in one fell swoop. Sternberg theorized that all relationships should try to achieve this type of love, but this is the most difficult love to achieve, as it requires a perfect balance among high levels of intimacy, passion and commitment.

“This is the gold standard of relationships,” says Dr. Albers. “There are a lot of expectations or feelings in how your relationship should be, but the reality of life is that it’s hard to always feel passionate with your partner and sometimes it’s a challenge to have the time to connect with your significant other.”

Regardless of where your relationship falls, it’s important to recognize that while there’s no wrong way to build a relationship, the kind of love you’re searching for depends on the degree you work on all three key components.

“Relationships that are based on a single element are less likely to survive and keep going than one based on two or more aspects,” says Dr. Albers. “It’s helpful to know which pieces are missing or which pieces you want to build up in your relationship.”

Stages of love

So how long does it take for someone to fall in love?

For some, it takes mere seconds and for others, it could take years. If someone has had more positive experiences and knows exactly what they want, love can happen more quickly than someone who might have experienced hard breakups or trauma. But it also depends on how you’re defining love and the strength of your connection.

“Your history and the strength of your physical reactions can dictate how quickly you fall in love,” says Dr. Albers. “Some people call the first initial stage of infatuation love and other people move toward the last stage of attachment and that’s when they put the label of love on it.”

Stage one: Falling in love

Attraction comes at you fast. According to one study, it takes just one-fifth of a second for someone to know if they’re attracted to someone. That heady rush of dopamine brings on a flush of feelings, notably butterflies, intense longing and fixation. In fact, some neurobiological studies indicate areas of the brain become increasingly more excited when someone sees the face of the person they love or are attracted to.

“Love starts in the brain, not the heart,” says Dr. Albers. “When people report being in love, they have a tsunami of activity in the brain.”

Often, we’re attracted to someone that feels familiar, so if you happen to have a type, there’s probably a reason for that.

“There is a lot happening unconsciously in terms of the pull toward someone and it’s usually because they’re familiar in some way, whether it’s their mannerisms, their demeanor or their presentation of the world,” explains Dr. Albers.

However short-lived this first initial stage of love may be, there’s a certain level of excitement and drive associated with it to kickstart the rest of your relationship, should it go any further than love at first sight.

Stage two: Getting to the good part

If the first stage of falling in love is about attraction, the second stage is all about removing the rose-colored glasses and really seeing the person you’re attracted to. It’s normal to transplant expectations and desires on the person we’re attracted to in an effort to fit the mold for that theatrical romance we’ve always dreamed about. But that often means you’ll overlook red flags.

“In the second stage, there’s some disillusionment,” says Dr. Albers. “You really get to know who they are instead of who you want them to be. If you continue to bond and like who you see, that’s what moves you into the next phase.”

Sometimes, love can be challenging in that it fulfills a need in the moment, and then that need may eventually change over time. Sometimes, you might find that your needs are overlooked in exchange for prioritizing your partner’s needs, which results in a codependent relationship. But the biggest takeaway here is: If someone doesn’t love you on the same level you love them, that’s OK.

“A lot of times, people take it personally,” says Dr. Albers. “Them not loving you has more to do with them than it does with you. The people who are the most successful at love are those that can accept the other person for who they are without trying to change them.”

Stage three: Creating an attachment

Over time, your dopamine levels tend to drop off so that the thrill of love and all that adrenaline you feel during initial attraction starts to settle down. As you further solidify your connection with your partner and create an attachment to them, your brain increases its levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, which help maintain that bonded feeling you have for longer periods.

“Those feelings of lust and that wild excitement of attraction mellows and turns into feelings of connection,” says Dr. Albers. “It goes from fireworks to feeling like you care about that person’s needs and you’re interested in their future and you invest in them.”

Once you’re attached to someone, they play a pretty significant role in your life even when you’re participating in the smallest, mundane, everyday activities. You tend to grow together and partner up: It’s your team against the world.

And if at some point that attachment deteriorates and you end up growing apart from one another, you’re forever changed by it.

“When people talk about people from their past that they’ve loved, they’ve been changed by it in some ways that can’t ever be undone,” says Dr. Albers. “They still play a role in your memory and care, and those experiences change what love means to you.”

How your love languages affect your relationships

With all the physical changes that come with falling in love, and all the added pressure of expectations versus reality, it can seem a bit daunting when trying to figure out how to strengthen relationships and maintain them long past the honeymoon phase. If you’re looking to start with simple solutions, Dr. Albers suggests considering the five love languages, a concept created by author Gary Chapman in 1992.

“It’s a simple way to communicate the very important concept that there are various ways to feel loved,” says Dr. Albers.

The idea poses that there are five main love languages in which we express love and want to be loved, and while you may find more meaningful experiences by expressing one of these languages, your partner may find more meaning in others. The key here is identifying how you want to be loved, but also finding ways to love your partner through these five areas:

  • Words of affirmation: Telling your partner what you love about them, small acts of praise or giving them compliments are small ways to express this love language — but it doesn’t have to stop at words.You can send a thoughtful card, email or text, or share a meaningful memory, photo, meme or social media post to drive this one home.
  • Acts of service: This love language is about picking up responsibility in small and meaningful ways. Maybe your partner doesn’t like doing a certain chore, so you pick that up for them. Or, it could be as simple as cooking them breakfast, bringing them a cup of coffee or offering to run errands when they’re short on time or feeling sick. “Love is a verb,” says Dr. Albers. “Do one thing each day to make your partner feel special.”
  • Quality time: If your partner loves new experiences and date night ideas, this might be the area to focus on. The key here is to give your partner your undivided attention. Maybe go on a walk, watch a movie or pick up a hobby together. Whatever you decide to do, it’s important to do it fully with your partner’s focus front and center. “You can do acts of service while spending time together,” says Dr. Albers. “When your partner is talking, put down your phone and really take in what they’re saying.”
  • Gift giving: Roses, jewelry or any small token of your affection — this one is pretty straightforward and tends to be amplified when important events, holidays or anniversaries roll around. And you don’t necessarily need to go big or go home — a gift can be something as simple as picking up their favorite snack for your next movie night.
  • Physical touch: This could be as simple as holding hands, cuddling, a kiss or a hug. If physical touch is high on your partner’s list, sexual intimacy may also rank high on their priorities. “The person who uses words to express their affection instead of touch may have to work a bit harder to get out of their comfort zone and think about connecting through touch,” notes Dr. Albers.

The sooner you communicate with your partner, the easier it’ll become to love, elevate and support them. And if there is ever a lull in the relationship, turning to these love languages as life rafts may be key in getting things back on the right track.

“You can identify what someone’s love language is at any point and it’s really a helpful tool in helping to express how you care about someone,” says Dr. Albers.

Complete Article HERE!