Category: Sexual Orientation

Posted on

Female husbands

Far from being a recent or 21st-century phenomenon, people have chosen, courageously, to trans gender throughout history

Abigail Mary Allen and James Allen (The Female Husband); a hand-coloured etching and aquatint by Thomas Howell Jones (c1829).

By Jen Manion

One summer night in 1836, police found George Wilson drunk on the street in the Lower East Side in New York City. An officer took Wilson to the station. The officer believed that Wilson was a sailor, and also suspected that Wilson might not have been a man. Wilson had been legally married to a woman for 15 years, and living and working as a man for even longer. They told the police that their masculine gender expression was a temporary disguise for safety and ease of travel while they pursued the man they loved who had abandoned them.

The best defence against a hostile police force was to emphasise heterosexual romance and minimise the significance of gender nonconformity in one’s life. The truth came to light, however, when Wilson’s wife stormed through the police station to retrieve her husband. In an interview, Elisabeth disclosed that 15 years earlier she was not at all disappointed when she learned of her husband’s sex, and that they were happily married. Like the policemen who detained and harassed George and Elisabeth, the journalists who would later report on the incident were derisive. But George and Elisabeth were released without formal charges.

Female husbands were people assigned female at birth who ‘transed’ gender, lived as men, and entered into legal marriages with women. The phrase ‘female husband’ was first used to describe such a person in 1746 by the British playwright and novelist Henry Fielding. It circulated for nearly 200 years before losing meaning in the early years of the 20th century. It was never a self-declared identity category. No one was known to walk up to someone and say: ‘Hello, my name is George Wilson and I’m a female husband.’ Rather, it was a term used by others – usually male writers, policemen, judges and doctors – in reference to people whose gender expression was different from their assigned sex. Far from being a recent or 21st-century phenomenon, people have chosen to trans gender throughout history. ‘Female husband’ was a label predominantly used to refer to white working-class people.

In 1856, Miss Lewis of Syracuse in New York state fell in love with Albert Guelph, a charming newcomer. After a brief courtship, they wed in an Episcopal church the same year. The bride’s father soon became suspicious of Guelph and called the police. Together, the policeman and the father interrogated and examined Guelph on the suspicion that Guelph was a woman disguised as a man. They arrested and imprisoned Guelph. Justice Durnford sentenced Guelph to 90 days imprisonment in the penitentiary for violating the vagrancy statute – a very vague ‘catch-all’ crime applied mostly to impoverished people for being poor, homeless, begging, drinking or simply existing in public spaces. Vagrancy laws were also invoked for minor social infractions against morals or order.

The Syracuse Daily Standard took great interest in the case and provided regular updates. When the judge asked Guelph directly: ‘Are you a male or female?’ Guelph refused to answer, instead deflecting the question back to the judge, stating ‘your officers can tell you’ or ‘have told you’. Neither Guelph nor their lawyer made any attempt to explain or justify the status of Guelph’s assigned sex or gender expression. Instead, the lawyer noted that there was no New York state law prohibiting ‘a person to dress in the attire of the opposite sex’. This was true. Guelph was soon released.

It was typical in such cases for people like Guelph to offer an explanation or excuse as to why they were presenting as male. As long as the accused spun a convincing tale, assured authorities that they were not threatening, and begged for forgiveness, they might be let go without further punishment or harassment. Those who worked as soldiers and fought in a war were the most sympathetic of such cases, as patriotism was deemed their core motivation. Others who were poor or alone and explained that presenting as male offered them safety while travelling and/or a higher wage than they could earn as women were also treated with a degree of compassion and understanding – provided that they were willing to change their clothes and resume moving through society as women. Guelph was different: they assumed male attire because they wanted to and because they could. They refused to offer any kind of explanation or justification – sympathetic or otherwise.

Female husbands in general were different from other groups who transed gender (such as soldiers or sailors) because they were in longterm committed relationships with women. Usually, these were legally binding marriages. This posed a much more dramatic threat to society, raising two different troubling possibilities: first, that female husbands were able to realise homosexual desire and participate in a same-sex relationship under the guise of a heterosexual one. This was a violation of both religious edicts and civil laws against sodomy. Second, female husbands threatened the notion that only those assigned male at birth could become men and enter into fulfilling sexual and romantic relationships with women. Whether husbands had strong identifications of themselves as people of masculine gender and/or same-sex desire was never clear. But it also didn’t matter because neither was welcome in society.

The judge advised Guelph to present as a woman in both clothing and manner. The newspaper reported that the judge:

expressed the hope that she would resume the habiliments of her sex, and when her term of sentence had expired conduct herself in such a manner as to win back the confidence and respect of community, which she had forfeited by her deception and imposition.

Guelph ignored the judge’s request, continued presenting in male attire, and reunited with their wife.

Early and mid-19th-century American legal authorities knew that gender could easily be changed. Gender was defined largely by one’s outward expression – chiefly indicated by hairstyle, clothing, physical deportment and particular habits. Men and women were easily distinguishable by these cues – which made it rather easy for someone to visibly trans gender. So when authorities found someone assigned female who was living as a man, they didn’t see it as something distinct or pathological. They didn’t think it signalled cross-gender identification to realise same-sex attraction. They believed that it could be ‘undone’ just as easily as it was ‘done’ in the first place.

Wilson gave in to the pressure temporarily by lying to the police. Guelph ignored and defied the authorities

This was something that Wilson, Guelph and others used to their advantage. When ordered to cease living as men and present as women instead, they didn’t argue that they couldn’t comply; nor did they explain why they wouldn’t. They didn’t claim that their gender was an expression of something deeper and innate. They had no language for the idea of gender identity – and there is no reason to believe it would have helped their case anyway. Gender was something one did – it wasn’t someone one was or a thing one had. The fleeting temporality of gender was liberating – and gave those who transed genders a variety of ways to wiggle out of trouble when authorities came calling. When views shifted at the turn of the 20th century to see gender transgression as something more innate and fixed, it had very negative consequences for female husbands.

Different language for talking and thinking about gender didn’t mean that there was no pressure to conform to dominant norms. Wilson gave in to the pressure temporarily by lying to the police. Guelph ignored and defied the authorities. Both resumed the lives they were living – as men with their wives – though perhaps more wary of and cautious around authorities.

Students have a myriad of reactions to this material. At first, they are wholly unimpressed. They have come of age in an era of transgender liberation. They identify as trans or nonbinary in astonishing numbers. Transgender issues, leaders and celebrities make headlines. They have embraced ‘they’ as an inclusive and powerful gender-neutral pronoun. They have no problem remembering and respecting each other’s pronouns while the over-50 crowd continues to stumble and offer excuses. When I share stories of trans figures from the past, they are happy to learn of such accounts but are generally nonplussed. They expect the past to be full of people who lived as they and their friends do now.

However, I am most surprised by the certainty with which they declare who was ‘really’ trans in the past and who merely transed gender for some ‘other’ reason. Female husbands such as Wilson, Guelph and Joseph Lobdell (of whom more later) were ‘really’ trans because we know they lived fully as men for a long portion of their lives. However, when I share news clippings of so-called ‘female soldiers’ or ‘female sailors’, students are quick to say that these people were not ‘really’ trans. When I ask why they think this, students offer two reasons: the soldiers and sailors were motivated by some other need (patriotism and/or poverty) or they didn’t live as men for very long. It is my job, of course, to help students unpack and contextualise these newspaper accounts so that they can read them with greater skepticism and eventually try to see them from a 19th-century perspective rather than through a 21st-century lens. I think one of the most powerful insights is the absence, for the most part, of a concept of ‘gender identity’ in the 19th century. Distinguishing ‘trans’ from ‘not-trans’ is futile and, in many ways, the least interesting route to approach this rich and varied material. What can we – in our ‘cisgender’ and ‘transgender’ 21st century – learn from an era when this distinction was murkier?

In 1854, the person who would later become Joseph Lobdell achieved local celebrity in Westerlo village, just outside Albany in New York state. Lobdell was the featured subject of a traveller’s chance encounter headlined ‘Extraordinary Performances of a Young Lady’, which ran in local papers such as The New York Observer, the Newport Mercury (Rhode Island), the Washington Sentinel (DC) and the Vermont Watchman and State Journal. It ran under other headlines too, such as ‘One of the Gals’ in the Daily True American (Trenton, New Jersey), ‘Good Girl’ in The Pittsfield Sun (Massachusetts) and ‘A Young Lady of Varied Accomplishments’ in Zion’s Advocate (Portland, Maine).

The article chronicled Lobdell’s mastery of all the labour and caretaking tasks expected of both men and women, from cooking, cleaning, entertaining and caring for their ill parents to chopping down wood and hunting. The traveller, a Mr Talmage, asked Lobdell about their shooting skills to which Lobdell reportedly:

smiled, and said she was as good a shot as was in the woods, and to convince me, she took out her hunting knife, and cut a ring four inches in diameter in a tree, with a small spot in the centre. Then stepping back 30 yards, and drawing up one of her pistols, put both balls inside the ring.

In contrast, Mr Talmage described Lobdell back at home later that evening:

After tea, she finished up her usual housework, and then sat down and commenced plying her needle in a very lady-like manner.

This recognition surely emboldened Lobdell’s confidence in their abilities. They were pretty sure they could do ‘men’s work’ and get ‘men’s wages’ and decided ‘to dress in men’s attire to seek labour’, leaving home soon after. Liberated from their family and the constraints of womanhood, for 25 years Lobdell moved in the world as a man, from New York to Pennsylvania to Minnesota and back again. They secured a variety of jobs along the way, and were sometimes driven out of town under suspicion that they were assigned female. This happened once in Pennsylvania when they worked as a singing teacher, and again in Minnesota where they were a jack-of-all-trades.

Relatives and neighbours began citing Lobdell’s gender and marriage to a woman as evidence of insanity

Lobdell wound up in the poor house in Delhi, New York state where they met their love – Marie Louise Perry – in 1860 or 1861, and partnered with her for nearly 20 years. In 1871, Lobdell and Perry’s relationship became national news when an Overseer of the Poor detailed his encounter with them in an article: ‘Joe Lobdell and Wife – Their History, &c’. Other news outlets picked up the story and ran related accounts. In 1871, The New York Times noted Lobdell’s masculinity and attributed it to their hard life, stating ‘the wild life she has led, and the hardships she has endured, have driven every feminine feature from her face’. The press understood Lobdell’s gender as something shaped by external forces – social and economic.

What led a person to this kind of life? Relatives and neighbours began citing Lobdell’s gender and marriage to a woman as evidence of their insanity. One neighbour declared Lobdell was insane because ‘she frequently claims that she is a man and has a wife’. In many cases of female husbands, members of their own community are more understanding and sympathetic towards them. Years, even decades, of being neighbours, friends or coworkers were not instantly undone upon learning about their unconventional gender. The most hostile and mean treatment often appears in the newspaper accounts from hundreds of miles away, written by people who never knew the person or pair. But the Lobdell situation is different. Here we see their neighbours and community members turning on them and describing them in the harshest possible light before a judge who held the power of life (freedom) and death (forced institutionalisation) over them. Whether at the behest of Lobdell’s brother John who really wanted them institutionalised or from their own negative experiences, the neighbours told the judge what he needed to hear to order Lobdell institutionalised against their will.

Accusations of insanity were never made at Wilson or Guelph, who were deemed deceitful, immoral and odd, but also resourceful, bold and even charming. Some of the ambiguity surrounding views of Wilson and Guelph came from the uncertainty of the source of their transgression. Were they motivated by the desire to move easily, from one country to another, as both did? Were they motivated by the desire for more lucrative work denied women? Were they escaping someone and/or chasing another? Were they lonely? Any number of explanations for why people assigned female at birth would trans gender and live as men were possible in the 19th century. Policemen were not overly concerned with questions of sex or sexuality. Though Wilson and Guelph, for example, were both female husbands legally married to women, the marriage itself was viewed as an expected component of manhood.

What distinguished Lobdell’s experience from the others? In 1880, Lobdell was institutionalised at the Willard Asylum for the Chronic Insane in New York state by their brother, and subject to the gaze of a doctor studying sexuality. Though Lobdell’s chief social transgression was one of gender, doctors were obsessed with and wrote extensively about their sexuality. In the eyes of Dr P M Wise, Lobdell’s masculinity was compelled by their sexual attraction to women. Wise wrote:

Her excitement was of an erotic nature and her sexual inclination was perverted. In passing to the ward, she embraced the female attendant in a lewd manner.

Near the turn of the 20th century, sexologists focused intently on examining those who expressed same-sex desire. This entire process would have been torture for Lobdell on every imaginable level. Lobdell was comfortable outdoors, in the woods, experiencing peace and community among plants and animals. Now they were detained inside a single room within a gated institution. After a failed and abusive marriage, they found great love in Marie Louise Perry. But they were cut off from her – forced into isolation. Lobdell lived as a man for upwards of 25 years, and now they were subject to all manner of physical interrogation and emotional inspection – and treated like a woman. In 1900, Lobdell was transferred to the insane asylum at Binghamton, New York state, where they remained until their death in 1912.

The terms by which we understand sexual orientation and gender identity are products of history and culture

Doctors examined thousands of subjects over the years as they developed a theory that homosexuality was innate and marked by gender nonconformity. The key theory for understanding same-sex desire was through the lens of sexual inversion. For a woman or someone assigned female to actualise their desire for a woman, they had to invert their sense of self into that of a man. This logic was anchored in heteronormativity. It was widely circulated and very influential – if deeply flawed. Fundamentally, it didn’t account for the wide range of gender expressions among self-avowed homosexuals. While the theory’s explanatory power for same-sex desire was limited, it had a seriously restrictive and damaging impact on broader views of gender-nonconformity and transing gender. No longer was transing something fleeting that could as easily be ‘undone’ as it was ‘done’ in the first place. Rather, it was a sign of something innately different and pathologising about the person.

These days, some LGBTQ+ people take comfort in the idea that gender identity and sexual orientation are innate; that we couldn’t change them even if we wanted to; that we were ‘born this way’. I don’t know if they are innate. I don’t believe I was ‘born this way’. I do know that how I relate to and understand my sexual orientation and gender identity has changed over time. But I don’t believe that I can change one or the other on a dime just because I might want to – or in response to social pressure. How do I know if my gender identity and/or sexual orientation will remain static for the rest of my life? Maybe they will change as the world and the circumstances of my life change. I don’t know for certain – and I’m not sure why this is important to know.

If researching female husbands has taught me anything, it is how the very terms by which we understand sexual orientation and gender identity are products of history and culture. Even liberal and progressive people and institutions are not necessarily more accurate or ‘progressive’ in their understanding of gender than those who came before us. The philosophy that is now seen as the best defence against homophobic and transphobic efforts to deny us rights (that we were ‘born this way’) was itself born of forced, violent and dehumanising examinations by doctors on those incarcerated or otherwise institutionalised. This view was highly raced, classed and gendered, and essentially defined us as lesser people: abnormal, deviant and requiring institutionalisation.

Thus, this view cannot be our only avenue to LGBTQ+ liberation in the 21st century. Rather, female husbands and their wives remind us of another way. They fought for their gender expression and relationships on the basis of choice and desire. When they were in danger, they told authorities only what the authorities wanted to hear. With no organised movement fighting for their rights and no visible community offering support, female husbands and their wives took bold actions, defended themselves and fought for the right to live their lives in peace. They did that without claiming that they were ‘born this way’ as a defence of lives lived. They challenged laws and norms to live together and love each other without apology or understanding. May we all be so brave.

Posted on

The Queer Lingo Dictionary

By Quinn Mathys

While some of the terms used in this edition may be known throughout parts of the queer community, not everyone — not even all queer people — may know their definitions. To help further the conversation, we have created this section so that you may reference it as needed as you read through the pieces. Words have power, and it’s important to understand what they communicate — all of their messages, the emotions with them, as well as their direct definitions.

AGAB — (acronym) stands for “assigned gender at birth,” a term trans* people may use to identify who were born in male (AMAB) or female (AFAB) bodies

Aromantic — (adj.) a person who doesn’t experience romantic attraction but may still experience sexual attraction. To read more about this, check out our piece on the Split Attraction Model (SAM).

Cisgender (sometimes shortened to “cis”) — (adj.) someone who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth

Cishet — (adj.) a cisgender heterosexual person

Cisexism — (noun) prejudice or discrimination against trans* people

Closeted — (adj.) used to describe someone who is not open about their queer sexuality or non-cis gender identity

Coming out — (verbal phrase) the act of a person revealing their queer sexuality or non-cis gender identity

Cross-dressing — (noun) the act of wearing clothes and presenting as another gender, not to be confused with identifying as that gender

Equal protection — (noun) a clause included in the 14th amendment that keeps any governing body from denying its citizens equal protection

Femme — (adj.) presenting or acting in a way that is traditionally feminine, regardless of the person’s gender identity

Gay — (adj.) a person who is romantically or sexually attracted to others of the same gender, sometimes used as an informal umbrella term to refer to members of the entire LGBTQ+ community

Gender (as opposed to sex) — (noun) a social construct relating to expectations of behavior, characteristics and thoughts; commonly confused with “sex,” which is usually assigned by doctors at birth based on a person’s genitalia or their chromosomes

Gender expression —(noun) the way that a person chooses to present their gender identity

Gender-nonconforming — (adj.) a term used to describe someone who does not follow the traditional gender norms of the gender they were assigned at birth

Heteronormative — (adj.) an action or belief that pushes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation

Heterosexism — (noun) prejudice or discrimination against people who are not heterosexual

Homosexual — (noun) someone who is sexually attracted to people of the same gender; however, this label carries a negative connotation, as it has been used as a clinical term to discriminate against gay people.

Intersectionality — (noun) the different aspects of identity (race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc.) as they apply to an individual or a group of people; these social categories overlap in interdependent systems of discrimination

Masc — (adj.) presenting or acting in a way that is traditionally masculine, regardless of the person’s gender identity

Orientation — (noun) the determination of how one person relates to someone else (i.e., romantic orientation or sexual orientation). Gender identity is not an orientation.

Outing — (verb) the act of revealing a closeted person’s queer sexuality or non-cis gender identity, which should only be done with the permission of said person. Outing someone without their permission is a violation of their trust and is highly frowned on.

Phobia (as in homophobia/biphobia/transphobia/aphobia/etc.) — (noun) dislike or prejudice against gay/bisexual/trans*/asexual individuals, more obvious or direct than heterosexism or cissexism

Queer — (adj.) a person who is a part of the LGBTQ+ community

Spectrum — (noun) a range between two opposite points (i.e., the gender spectrum), but it is more commonly used in reference to autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

They/them/their — (pronouns) the most common singular gender neutral pronouns in the English language, which have been used since the 14th century

Trans* — (adj.) people who do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. The asterisk acknowledges there are people who may not feel like the term “trans” or “transgender” accurately applies to them, and its placement shows that those other identities are being included in the discussion.

Trans panic — (noun) an excuse that can be used by the accused to get a lighter sentence in a court of law if the accused has murdered a trans* person.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

What Heteroflexible Means

& How To Know If It Applies To You

By Kim Wong-Shing

Up to 15% of the U.S. population may identify as heteroflexible, according to a 2020 study. That’s more than the number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people combined. But to many people, this identity is still a mystery. Here’s what it truly means to be heteroflexible and how to figure out whether this label applies to you.

In a nutshell, heteroflexible means “mostly straight.” The term refers to people who are mostly attracted to the “opposite” gender but are also open to same-gender experiences. Because heteroflexible people are not entirely straight, they fall onto the LGBTQIA+ spectrum of sexual and romantic identity. (On the queer-women-focused dating app Her, for example, “heteroflexible” is one of the sexual identities that users can choose from.) Both women and men can identify as heteroflexible or mostly straight.

“Heteroflexible is still a very new term and can refer to a wide range of behaviors, thoughts, and feelings,” Jor-El Caraballo, LMHC, therapist and co-founder of Viva Wellness in New York City, tells mbg. People who identify as heteroflexible may experience a range of same-gender desires or behaviors, including sex, flirting, kissing, crushes, or fantasies—all while being mostly attracted to the other gender. That said, the meaning of heteroflexibility is subjective; there’s not just one way to be heteroflexible.

Heteroflexible vs. bisexual.

“Bisexual” refers to someone who is attracted to people of their own gender as well as other genders. If you think that sounds somewhat similar to being heteroflexible, you’re not wrong. The terms “heteroflexible” and “bisexual” can describe similar experiences, and some people even identify as both. Like all sexual identities, both of these words are subjective. Their meanings are nuanced and often have more to do with evolving popular usage than strict dictionary definitions.

Bisexual and heteroflexible are separate, coexisting identities. Many people do feel drawn to one label over the other, and which identity is more “accurate” for a particular person is ultimately up to that individual. “For each person it will be different,” psychotherapist Todd Baratz, LMHC, tells mbg. “Ultimately, this is a subjective experience. Some don’t want to commit to one label or feel more comfort and congruence with another.” 

Linguistically speaking, heteroflexible and bisexual are very different-sounding words. The word heteroflexible has the term “hetero” front and center, which may appeal to people who feel tied to their straight or mostly straight identity. By contrast, the word bisexual doesn’t contain “hetero” at all. This may appeal to those for whom same-gender attraction is a more central part of their identities. 

In the end, “we have to become more curious” about why people pick specific labels rather than trying to prescribe them, Baratz says. Caraballo agrees, adding, “It’s really important to listen to not only what terms people use to label themselves but also what it means for them.”

How to know if you’re heteroflexible.

In some ways, it’s great that identities like heteroflexible don’t have strict definitions—it means that the term is expansive enough to fit a range of people’s experiences. But also, this can make life confusing for not-straight folks. If there’s not a strict definition of heteroflexible, then how do you know whether you’re heteroflexible or not?

“There isn’t usually a ‘how to do sexual orientation,'” Baratz explains. “People explore and experiment.” Only you can decide whether you identify with this word. 

Here are some clues that you may fall into the heteroflexible category:

  1. You’re mostly into the opposite gender, but you’ve been attracted to the same gender once or twice in the past.
  2. You only seriously date people of the opposite gender, but you sometimes like to “have fun” with the same gender.
  3. You’re happy being straight, but you’re curious about experimenting sexually or romantically with people of the same gender.
  4. You’re happy being straight, but you’ve tried being with someone of the same gender and enjoyed it.
  5. You don’t completely rule out being with someone who shares your gender, but you’d only do so in special circumstances.
  6. The idea of never being with the same gender makes you feel like you’d be missing out on an important experience.
  7. Or, conversely, being with the same gender is something you could take or leave—a recreational activity, not a necessity.
  8. Terms like “bisexual” or “queer” don’t feel like they fully capture who you are.

The history of heteroflexibility.

The term “heteroflexible” first appeared in slang used by college students in the early 2000s, according to Merriam-Webster. The term derives from “heterosexual,” which originated in the 19th century alongside its counterpart “homosexual.” (The term “homoflexible” also exists for those who identify as mostly gay.)

While the term “heteroflexible” is new, being mostly straight is definitely not a recent phenomenon. “This kind of flexibility has existed as long as sexuality has, so it’s not really a new idea per se,” Caraballo says. The labels “gay” and “straight” have never been enough to fully capture the wide range of human sexual experience. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey developed the Kinsey scale to more accurately reflect this range. The scale goes from 0 for “exclusively heterosexual” to 6 for “exclusively homosexual.” That leaves numbers 2 through 5 to represent everyone who’s somewhere in between, which, it turns out, is many people. Years of research, dating all the way back to Kinsey’s original studies, have found that many people who self-identify as straight also report same-sex romantic or sexual behaviors. This is true for both men and women.

In more recent years, being heteroflexible or mostly straight has evolved into its own identity, with many personal essays and books on the topic. A 2015 report found that half of people between 18 and 24 years old say they’re “not 100% straight.” Moreover, this trend seems to be on the rise in younger generations. A 2016 survey found that only 48% of Generation Z identifies as completely straight, compared to 65% of millennials.

Debates and controversy over the term heteroflexible.

Given that sexual fluidity has existed for such a long time, the rise of the word “heteroflexible” to accurately describe this fluidity has proved useful to many folks, particularly those who identify with the label. But not everyone is supportive of this new identity. “I think that any time someone finds new, uncommon language, there is a pushback,” Caraballo says.

One popular criticism holds that identifying as heteroflexible is biphobic. Biphobia often comes in the form of erasure, wherein bisexual people get excluded, invalidated, or made invisible. This is a major problem even within the LGBTQIA+ community. For example, many people mistakenly believe that bisexuality isn’t a “real” sexual orientation. Bisexual women are often presumed to be straight, while bisexual men are often presumed to be gay.

Some people believe that identifying as heteroflexible rather than bisexual is just another way to avoid validating bisexuality as a real experience. However, just because these two terms have some overlap in meaning doesn’t mean that they’re exactly the same. There are other words that people who fall into the dictionary definition of “bisexual” choose to use instead, including pansexual, queer, fluid, and polysexual. Each of these words comes with its own distinct, nuanced meaning, and people who identify with these words often do so because they feel like home, not necessarily because they have anything against being bi.

“I think that largely people use language ultimately that is both comfortable and familiar to them,” Caraballo says. Baratz agrees, adding, “Oftentimes people don’t feel as if they fit into any category, and the label becomes the default language they use to communicate to others.”

Sexual fluidity isn’t going anywhere—so the more words we can use for our experiences, the better. As heteroflexible identity becomes more popular, it also becomes more widely embraced, by both straight and queer people alike. “While there are folks in the queer community who don’t accept all of their LGBTQIA+ family, the majority do,” Baratz says. “Over time it is likely that people will be given more and more permission to self-define and/or identify as they please.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Bridging the research gap on the sexual health of men in the LGBTQ+ community

Findings could inform health policy, but professor warns against jumping to conclusions

By

Health-policy makers often make decisions that drastically impact people all across the country, but before they can do that, they need to understand what the population truly needs. That can be difficult, though, when policies affect specific groups with even more specific health needs — such as men who have sex with men.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) can be uniquely affected by sexual health-related policies, but it’s historically been very difficult to get information that truly represents their needs as a diverse population.

A survey to bridge the gap

A major initiative to gather information has been the European Men-Who-Have-Sex-With-Men Internet Survey (EMIS), which asks questions about the mental and sexual health practices of gbMSM all over Europe — and, in the 2017 version, also those of men in Canada. “This is really meant to be kind of a public health report,” said Dr. David Brennan, a professor and assistant dean, research at U of T’s Faculty of Social Work, who was instrumental in implementing the survey in Canada.

This was the first study in a long time to gather health information about the sexual health of gbMSM on a national scale. It contains results from both transgender and cisgender respondents from a variety of backgrounds all across the country. The survey’s questions were informed by health experts from across Canada, and cover topics like safe sex practices, drug use, depression, anxiety, and homophobia.

Some of these trends have been investigated by more specific studies in the past, and the new study is consistent with past results. For example, rates of anxiety and depression in gbMSM were higher than rates in the general population, according to Brennan. There’s still, however, a wealth of new information to be found from the study, as it measured some things that have, frankly, not been measured before.

Reducing the risks associated with sex between men

Today, gbMSM in Canada can find plenty of information online about safe sexual practices. In fact, Brennan recounted that his research lab, CRUISElab, discovered that most gbMSM turn to Google for sexual education.

However, over the last few years, there have been a few very important developments for HIV-related sexual health, and it’s unclear how far this information has travelled. One of the goals of this survey was to measure the prevalence of knowledge and usage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a drug that can be used to prevent infection in HIV-negative people who are at risk of contracting HIV.

PrEP’s a fairly recent development that has only become widespread since the last EMIS in 2010, and it is not covered by provincial health insurance in most parts of Canada, including Ontario.

This may pose a significant barrier to men interested in using the drug, as evidenced by the numbers in the study — while only about 8.4 per cent of Canadian respondents had ever used PrEP, over 50 per cent said they’d be likely to use it if it were both available and affordable. More respondents had used PrEP in Québec and in British Columbia — where the drug is covered by the province — than in Ontario.

Another important area the study illuminated is ‘party-and-play’ sex, or ‘chemsex,’ in which participants use drugs to enhance their sexual experience. When injectable drugs are introduced in sexual situations, there can be a much higher risk of participants contracting certain sexually transmitted infections.

Conclusions do not indicate a lack of concern with safe practices

That being said, Brennan recommended that readers be wary about assuming chemsex participants are automatically less concerned with sexual safety. Some researchers have found that in gatherings where participation incurs a greater risk of sexually-transmitted infections, participants build up a community of sorts to take care of each other’s sexual health.

Not only should the general public avoid leaping to conclusions, but researchers should as well. It’s easy to draw conclusions that might be unconsciously influenced by our prior biases, especially when reading research on gbMSM. In Canada, the survey reached out to a lot of participants through dating apps, which could affect the study’s results, as these participants may be more likely to have more or more frequent sexual partners.

This doesn’t, however, mean that they’re necessarily being less safe than the general population.

“I’ve had many calls from reporters wanting me to tell them that people using these apps are actually having more unsafe sex. And, no, there’s really not much evidence to show that,” said Brennan. “It’s less about the venue or the location and more about… preferred behaviour.”

The survey is, of course, limited in its sampling methods — it can only collect data from participants who were willing to reach out in response to ads on dating apps, or at sexual health centres that the study has paired with across the country.

But that doesn’t mean the data is any less useful. This data could be instrumental in drafting a health policy that accounts for the realities of being a Canadian man in the LGBTQ+ community.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Da Vinci’s sex life reveals a complex understanding of male love

Leonardo da Vinci ‘loved penises,’ but remained celibate argues historian Elizabeth Abbott

Historian Elizabeth Abbott argues that understanding Leonardo da Vinci’s sex life, or lackthereof, provides a rare glimpse into how sexuality and male love was understood and practised in Renaissance Italy.

By Elizabeth Abbott

Leonardo da Vinci is known as a brilliant artist and scientist — a genius who dreamed up flying machines 400 years before the first airplane ever took flight.

He’s also known for his exquisite art, and the ways he captured the complexity and nuance of female beauty. In his life, his relationships with women were positive, supportive and kind.

But he was repulsed by female sexuality.

“He had an almost clinical perception of heterosexual intercourse,” said historian Elizabeth Abbott in a lecture she delivered at Carleton University in Ottawa.

“He said, quote: ‘the sexual act of coitus and the body parts employed for it are so repulsive, that were it not for the beauty of the faces and the adornment of the actors and the pent-up impulse, nature would lose the human species.'”

She points to a sketch da Vinci drafted of heterosexual intercourse as a prime example of his revulsion.

“The woman is only represented by her cavities — there is no face, or head, or torso,” Abbott observed in conversation with IDEAS host, Nahlah Ayed.

“He referred to [sexual intercourse] as repellent. And certainly this would be a good illustration of that point of view.”

Meanwhile, he drew countless beautiful sketches of the phallus and anus.

“He loved penises,” said Abbott, who is a senior research associate at Trinity College at the University of Toronto.

“In fact, he wrote: ‘The penis sometimes displays an intellect of its own. When a man may desire it to be stimulated it remains obstinate and goes its own way, sometimes moving on its own without the permission of its owner. Whether he is awake or sleeping, it does what it desires. Often when the man wishes to use it, it desires otherwise. And often it wishes to be used and the man forbids it. Therefore, it appears that this creature possesses a life and intelligence separate from the men.'”

Humiliated into celibacy

Abbott describes da Vinci as homosexual — a term that would not have been understood in Renaissance Italy, where male love was accepted and celebrated.

“His sort of male sexuality was understood and accepted,” said Abbott. “He preferred the company of and the beauty of men…But what was despised [in Renaissance Italy] was sodomy. Why? It was probably because it was considered by the Church to be unnatural. Sex was supposed to be for procreation only.”

In 1476, Leonardo da Vinci was arrested by the Office of the Night under the accusation of sodomy. The Office of the Night was the moral policing unit in Florence. While eventually acquitted, the experience was so humiliating for him that Abbott argues da Vinci vowed himself to live a life of celibacy.

“Celibacy is defined in many different ways. For him it was not a privation,” she argues. “I think it’s a kind of celibacy that was very satisfying for him.”

She points out that he continued to surround himself with beautiful young men, and developed a deep relationship with a young man named Salai, who lived with Leonardo for more than 30 years as his muse and artistic inspiration — despite da Vinci’s own observations about how rude and untrustworthy Salai could be.

“Some claimed that [Salai] was his lover,” said Abbott. “But I prefer to describe him as the keeper of Leonardo’s erotic fantasies. I don’t think that … he actually had sex with him. He dressed him lavishly like a doll often in pink and dandyfied clothes and extravagant stockings and 24 pairs of shoes! It was an awful lot of shoes back in the Renaissance.”

She says that the way da Vinci directed his sexuality helps us recognize the fluidity of sexual identity today.

“We are so intent on understanding and defining ourselves,” Abbott said. “I think it’s fascinating to realize that the concept of homosexuality as we know it didn’t even exist then.”

And of course, Leonardo’s distaste for women’s sexuality did not influence his skill and passion for painting them, so long as they were fully clothed.

Leonardo da Vinci’s Ginevra de’ Benci beside his most famous painting, the Mona Lisa.

“He was very pro-women and he had good relations with many of them,” said Abbott, pointing out the care and artistry he displays in his painting of the Mona Lisa, and the lesser-known portrait of a young Ginevra.

She argues the beauty and sensitivity of da Vinci’s portraits of women would not have been possible if he did not develop a respect and connection with them.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Homosexuality may have evolved for social, not sexual reasons

We propose same-sex attraction evolved to allow greater social integration and stronger same-sex social bonds.

By

How did homosexuality in humans evolve?

Typically, this question is posed as a paradox.

The argument is this: gay sex alone can’t produce children, and for traits to evolve, they have to be passed onto children, who get some form of competitive advantage from them.

From this perspective, some argue homosexuality should not have evolved.

In a paper published yesterday by myself and Duke University professor Brian Hare, we propose human sexuality (including homosexuality) evolved as an outcome of the evolution of increased sociability in humans.

We argue many of the evolutionary forces that shaped human sexuality were social, rather than based on reproductive ability.

This is our “sociosexual hypothesis” for the evolution of gay sex and attraction.

Sex for bonding

For humans, and many other animals, sex is not just about reproduction.

In our closest primate relative, the bonobo, straight and gay sex have vital roles in play, social transactions, barter of food, same-sex social bonding and bonding between mating pairs.

We shouldn’t limit our thinking about the evolution of sex to its reproductive functions. We must also consider its social functions.

Based on the social behaviour of primates (and other social mammals), we argue our species’ recent cognitive and behavioural evolution was driven by natural selection favouring traits that allowed better social integration. This is called prosociality.

Early humans that could quickly and easily access the benefits of group living had a strong selective advantage. We believe this led to the evolution of a whole range of traits including reduced aggression, increased communication, understanding, social play and affiliation.

Species such as the bonobo, that evolved for high prosociality, evolved to use sexual behaviour in many social contexts. This results in an increase of sex in general, greater diversity in the contexts of sex, and an increase in gay sex.

We believe something similar happened in recent human evolution. Gay sex and attraction may have evolved because individuals with a degree of same-sex attraction benefited from greater social mobility, integration and stronger same-sex social bonds.

This may sound counterintuitive, given gay people are socially marginalised, ostracised and even criminalised in many societies.

However, our argument addresses the early evolution of human sexuality, not how relatively recent phenomena like religion and religion-based legal structures have responded to sexual minorities.

Supporting facts

Many studies since the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey and colleagues have emphasised that sexual minorities occur across all cultures, and the levels of gay and bisexual people in populations have been quite stable over time.

Our hypothesis predicts that bisexuality and people who identify as “mostly straight” should be more common than people who identify as exclusively gay, and this is the case.

Recent genetic analyses confirm hundreds of genes influence sexuality in complex ways.

We quite randomly inherit half our genes from each parent. Each person’s genetic makeup is unique, so it would be highly unlikely to find two people with exactly the same set of genes influencing their sexuality.

Thus, variation is expected, and individuals fall along a spectrum ranging from a majority who are straight, to a minority who identify as gay.

Our hypothesis for the evolution of homosexuality would predict this kind of variation in human sexuality, and can help explain why it is generally stable across cultures.

We believe sexuality is a highly complex trait, interwoven with sociality. Attraction, sexual behaviour, social bonds and desire all contribute to its complexity.

Asking the right questions

Height is another feature influenced by hundreds of genes, many of which interact with our external environments in complex ways.

We see a continuous variation in human height – some very tall and very short people exist.

We might draw on nutritional ecology to explore the evolution of human height, but would not feel the need to introduce special evolutionary arguments to explain the existence of tall or short people.

No special explanation is necessary. They are simply exhibiting natural, genetically influenced variations in height.

Similarly, we think asking how gay sex and attraction evolved is the wrong question.

A more useful question to ask is: how did human sexuality evolve in all its forms?

In doing do, we acknowledge homosexuality does not present a paradox needing a special explanation. It is simply a result of our species’ recent sociosexual evolution.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

There’s a new sexual orientation category called heteroflexible.

And it brings health issues that need to be addressed.

By

Labels, categorization, boxes. There are some, if not many, who don’t want any part of identifying themselves by others’ characterizations.

But, according to Nicole Legate, an assistant professor of psychology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, some categorization is vital when it comes to addressing health disparities in sexual minority groups (groups other than heterosexuals), including higher levels of distress, lower levels of self-esteem, and unprotected sex.

It was while looking for those health disparities between heterosexuals and sexual minorities that Legate, with co-author Ronald Rogge of the University of Rochester, found a new sexual orientation category that they believe should be considered alongside heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. That category is heteroflexibles — men and women who identify as heterosexual but who are strongly attracted to or engage in sex with people of the same sex. Legate said this group does not identify as bisexual, which is why these individuals should be in their own unique category.

Heteroflexibles are much less out about their orientation, according to Legate, so they don’t talk about it to other people nearly as much as bisexuals or gay and lesbian individuals. And not offering that bit of information to a health provider could prevent a physician, for instance, from recommending getting tested or talking about PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis, to prevent against HIV since same-sex partners (regardless of how one identifies) tend to have greater risk for sexually transmitted infections.

Legate and Rogge discussed heteroflexibles in a 2016 study where they created an algorithm that looks at survey participants’ identity, behavior and attraction to produce a more data-driven look at sexual orientation. The study included over 3,000 people in the U.S. and took about two years to complete. In the study, 56% of bisexuals said they had had a same sex partner in the previous year, and for heteroflexibles, it was 42%, Legate said. She estimates that up to 15% of the general population may identify as heteroflexible but that a larger representative sample is needed for more research.

“Against heterosexuals, they (heteroflexibles) showed higher rates of different kinds of risks and worse psychological functioning,” Legate said. “The risk behaviors they showed in our study were things like problematic drinking, condom-less sex — so greater levels of sexually transmitted infections. There are so few studies out there about this group, and we have not yet uncovered the reasons why they might show this higher level of risk.”

Next steps, Legate said, include nailing down why heteroflexibles might engage in same-sex activity versus opposite sex activity, how many heteroflexibles there are and why this group shows certain health disparities.

The more accurate estimates are of sexual minorities in the population, the better prepared researchers and health care providers interested in studying health, epidemiological and psychology issues related to sexual orientation can be when addressing their needs.

“When you go to the doctor’s office, they don’t ask you for your sexual orientation,” Legate said. “I think educating providers about the fact that it’s OK to ask and that it is relevant in many cases just like knowing race and age — these are standard demographic questions that can give us a little extra health information or help us understand what groups may be at elevated risks for different things.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

7 myths about queer sex you should stop believing now

By Canela López

  • While sex in general has been misrepresented in popular media and porn, LGBTQ sex, in particular, tends to be exaggerated. 
  • Less than 6% of teens reported that they received sex education with any mention of LGBTQ-related topics, making it easy to believe some of the most popular myths. 
  • Here are 7 things you may have gotten wrong about queer sex. 

While almost teens in the US get some form of sex education, fewer than 6% had sex education classes included LGBTQ-related topics as of 2015, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

This lack of formal education paired with the overall misrepresentation of LGBTQ sex in mainstream media and porn makes it easy for myths about queer sex to circulate.

Here are 8 things you may have gotten wrong about LGBTQ sex, from scissoring to STIs.

Myth: “Scissoring” is real.

“Scissoring” is not a thing. At least, not in the way that most porn portrays it. 

For those unfamiliar with the concept, “scissoring” is when two people with vaginas touch clitorises in order to stimulate each other. It is one of the most common ways queer people with vaginas — typically cisgender lesbians — are shown having sex.

While a realistic version of scissoring called “tribbing” is actually used, the way porn portrays it is typically wrong, with a lot of forceful slamming of genitals and awkward positions that can’t be comfortable for anyone.

Myth: Penetration happens with no preparation.

Porn portraying queer men often fails to show the preparation involved in anal sex, such as cleaning the area, using lube, and foreplay. 

According to Dr. Joseph Terlizzi, a colon and rectal surgeon, people who are bottoming — or being penetrated during anal sex — oftentimes need to prepare their bodies before sex to make sure they don’t get hurt. 

“If your anus is too tightly contracted when you are first penetrated, you’ll run the risk of tearing skin or damaging your sphincter,” Terlizzi told Lighthouse: LGBTQ+ affirming care. “That’s why it’s important to relax your anus before penetration using various foreplay techniques and to keep your anus relaxed and well-lubricated while bottoming.”

In real life, not preparing adequately can lead to an uncomfortable and painful experience for those bottoming.

Myth: Bisexual people are just going through a phase.

The idea that bisexual people are just going through a phrase is one of the most common misconceptions around bisexuality, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

This kind of statement implies that you don’t believe their sexuality exists. Experts acknowledge that sexuality is a spectrum, just like gender, and people can be attracted to people of all genders, one gender, or no gender at all.

Myth: Women having sex with women must use a strap-on.

Porn, television, and movies that show queer women having sex often focus heavily on penetration, specifically with a strap-on — or a sex toy that attaches a dildo to a harness so that people can engage in hands-free penetration. 

But the idea that strap-ons are a part of sex every single time is inaccurate, and frames queer sex in a heteronormative way.

In reality, sex can look lots of different ways for queer people with vaginas, and not all of them revolve around penetration. Oral sex, clitoral stimulation, dry humping, nipple play, and tribbing are just a few of the ways that queer people can get it on without penetration.

Myth: People with vaginas can’t give each other STIs.

While the use of dental dams — or latex sheets designed to be put on the vagina during oral sex — is sometimes seen as a joke among queer people, the idea that two people with vaginas can’t transmit STIs to each other is far from true.

Queer people with vaginas are at risk for the same types of STIs as cisgender or straight people and sex should still be approached with caution. STIs can be transmitted from skin to skin contact, oral-genital stimulation, and contaminated toys, so safe sex practices are important.

Myth: You can guess who’s a top and who’s a bottom.

A consistent theme in media featuring queer people is the masc-femme, top-bottom dichotomy. Think Shane Mccutcheon on the original “The L Word” being the ultimate top heartbreaker while sporting her iconic androgynous rocker aesthetic.

Essentially, feminine-presenting people are framed as being the “bottom,” or the person the sex is done to, and masculine-presenting people are framed as being the “top,” or the person being assertive during sex.   

In reality, people can be tops, bottoms, or switches — or people who are versatile in their sexual preferences — regardless of gender presentation. 

Myth: Having preferences that exclude people based on whether they are cisgender or a certain racial group isn’t problematic.

Queer men often list “preferences” on dating apps like “no blacks, no femmes, no fatties.” Sometimes, these preferences really just act as thinly veiled guises for racism, transphobia, and fatphobia.

Research released earlier this year on sexual racism illustrated the negative impacts this kind of dating exclusion can have on queer men of color.

In addition to racial preferences, a significant number of dating app users exclude transgender people from their dating pool.

These kinds of identity-based preferences lead to feelings of low self-esteem and marginalization among those excluded, and can contribute to disproportionately high rates of poor mental health and even suicide among these groups.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Is Same-Sex Behavior Hardwired in Animals from the Beginning?

Same-sex sexual behavior might have started out on an equal footing with different-sex sex.

Evolutionary scientists have been thinking about same-sex sexual behavior all wrong.

That’s the implication of a new study on same-sex behavior in animals. Instead of asking why animals engage in same-sex behavior (SSB), researchers should be asking, “Why not?” the authors said. 

If they’re right, same-sex sex may not have evolved independently in different animals for adpative reasons. Instead, same-sex sex may have emerged very early in time and could persist simply because engaging in it doesn’t cost animals much, evolutionarily speaking.

“Usually, when evolutionary biologists see a trait that’s really widespread across evolutionary lineages, we at least consider the idea that the trait is ancestral and was preserved in all those lineages,” said Julia Monk, a doctoral candidate at Yale University, who co-authored the new research. “So why hadn’t people considered that hypothesis for SSB?”

In evolutionary science, same-sex sexual behavior has long been viewed as a conundrum: Why would animals spend time and energy doing something sexual that won’t pass along their genes to the next generation? And yet, same-sex sexual behavior has been observed in at least 1,500 species, ranging from lowly squash bugs to humans.

(To avoid anthropomorphizing, the researchers don’t use the terms “homosexual,” “heterosexual,” “gay” or “straight” to refer to animal behavior.)

“We can’t assign sexuality to animals — we’re trying our best to learn about them by observing their behaviors,” Monk told Live Science. “And those behaviors shouldn’t be mapped onto human cultural and societal contexts.”

The assumption that there must be an evolutionary reason for all this same-sex sex has led researchers to search for possible benefits to same-sex behavior. For example, in humans, researchers have found that having a gay son or brother seems to be associated with a woman having more offspring in total. Other studies have posited that same-sex sexual behavior is a side effect of other genes that have reproductive benefits. 

In evolutionary biology, the ability of an animal to reproduce given its environment is called fitness. It’s entirely possible that in some species, same-sex sex could have fitness benefits, Monk and her colleagues wrote in their paper, published Nov. 18 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution. But these evolutionary benefits may not be required for same-sex sexual behavior to exist. 

Imagine, instead, that the earliest sexually reproducing animals simply tried to mate with any and all members of their species — regardless of sex. This might have been a logical pathway for evolution, because all the bells and whistles that distinguish males from females are energetically costly to evolve. So any effort expended on mating with the same sex would be compensated for by not spending energy evolving and maintaining distinctive secondary sex characteristics, like differing colors, scents and behaviors. Those sex-distinguishing traits may have all come later in the evolutionary chain, the authors argued.

In this formulation, same-sex and different-sex sexual behavior would have started out on an equal footing, early in animal evolution. This could explain why same-sex sex is so common throughout the animal kingdom: It didn’t evolve multiple times independently, but was instead part of the fabric of animal evolution from the start.

Same-sex penguin couples keep adopting eggs, and the Berlin Zoo is celebrating

The new hypothesis undercuts old assumptions about same-sex behaviors, said Caitlin McDonough, a doctoral candidate at Syracuse University and a study co-author. Much of the research done on these sexual behaviors assumes that same-sex sex is costly for animals and that different-sex sex is not costly, she said.

“You really need to go through those assumptions and test the costs and benefits of both behaviors in a system,” McDonough said.

If same-sex behaviors go back to the roots of animal evolution, the fact that these behaviors are so common today makes sense, Monk said.

“If you assume a trait like SSB is a new development and has high costs, it’s going to be really hard to understand how it could become more and more common from those low initial frequencies,” she said. “It would have to have really large fitness benefits, or be otherwise impervious to natural selection, for that outcome to be probable.

“On the other hand, if you assume a trait is ancestral and was originally common, and it has low costs, it’s much more likely that it would remain widespread to this day, even if it doesn’t seem to contribute much to fitness.”

One piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis is that some echinoderms, including sea stars and sea urchins, engage in same-sex sexual behavior. Echinoderms evolved early in the history of life, likely in the Precambrian period more than 541 million years ago.

But other evidence is slim, largely because scientists haven’t systematically studied same-sex sexual behavior in animals. Most observations have been accidental, and biologists have often viewed sex between two animals of the same sex as irrelevant or improper to note, Monk said. Sometimes, researchers automatically assume that same-sex behavior isn’t really about sex but instead is about dominance or bonding. And often, if two animals are observed having sex, they’re assumed to be male and female without any confirmatory evidence, McDonough said.

“The science that we do is really informed and influenced by cultural biases,” she said.

Thinking of same-sex sexual behavior as a standard part of the animal repertoire would change how researchers approach the study of the evolution of these behaviors. The next step, Monk said, would be to gather more data on the prevalence of same-sex behavior in animals. Then, researchers could compare species from across the tree of life to determine if all linages show same-sex behavior. If so, it would strengthen the argument that same-sex sexuality was part of life for the ancestors of all of today’s sexually reproducing animals.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Survey sheds light on fluid teen sexual orientation

At least one in five teenagers reports some change in sexual orientation during adolescence, according to new research.

by

“This work highlights the fluidity that many adolescents experience in terms of how they label their sexuality and who they feel sexually attracted to,” says lead author J. Stewart, a PhD student at North Carolina State University.

For this study, researchers looked at data from 744 students from rural high schools in the southeastern United States; 54% of the students were girls, 46% were boys. Students filled out surveys each year for three years, spanning either their freshman through junior years or their sophomore through senior years. Researchers collected the data between 2014 and 2016.

The researchers found that at some point during the three-year period, 19% of students reported at least one change in their self-labeled sexual identity—for example, classifying themselves as heterosexual in year one and as bisexual in year two. Some students reported multiple changes, such as switching from heterosexual to bisexual between years one and two, and then back to heterosexual in year three.

There were also notable differences between male and female students, with 26% of girls reporting some change in sexual identity over the three-year study period, compared to 11% of boys.

In addition to how teens labeled their sexualities, researchers looked at the extent to which teens reported being romantically attracted to boys and/or girls. The study found that 21% of students reported changes in who they were attracted to over the course of the study. As with sexual identity, some students reported changes in romantic attraction between years one and two, and again between years two and three.

Again, there were notable differences between boys and girls, with 31% of girls reporting changes in romantic attraction, compared to 10% of boys.

“Some adolescents shifted between sexual minority identities and/or attractions—gay or lesbian, bisexual, etc. as well as varying degrees of same-sex attractions—across all three years,” Stewart says. “Others fluctuated between heterosexual and sexual minority groups. And when we looked at the extent to which sexual identity, attraction, and sexual behavior aligned, we saw some interesting trends.”

The researchers found that the majority of people who identified as sexual minorities also reported some degree of same-sex attraction—and most had engaged in some form of sexual behavior with a person of the same sex.

However, there was more variability among students who identified themselves as heterosexual—particularly for girls.

For example, 9% of all female students labeled themselves as both heterosexual and having at least some attraction to girls. And 12% of girls who reported being both heterosexual and having no sexual attraction toward girls also reported engaging in same-sex sexual behavior.

“The results for boys mirrored those for girls, albeit to a lesser degree,” Stewart says.

“Adolescence is a time of identity exploration, and sexual orientation is one aspect of that. One takeaway here is that the process of sexual identity development is quite nuanced for a lot of teens. And based on research with young adults, we expect these patterns will continue for many people into their late 20s and even beyond.

“To be clear, we’re talking about internally driven changes in sexual orientation,” Stewart says. “This research does not suggest these changes can be imposed on an individual and does not support the idea of conversion therapy. There’s ample evidence that conversion therapy is harmful and does not influence anyone’s sexual orientation.”

The researchers are already considering future directions for the work.

“The data in this study comes from kids growing up in the rural South,” Stewart says. “It would be interesting to see if these numbers vary across different sociopolitical environments. Additionally, we weren’t able to identify how these patterns looked among trans and other gender minority adolescents. That would be an important direction for future work.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

The Evolution of a Bisexual

My Road to Embracing Sexual Fluidity

by

“Now, I’m far more attracted to men than women, but who’s to say my sexual preference won’t sway again?”

I’ve identified as straight, I’ve identified as gay, and I’ve identified—and still identify—as bi. My sexual identity is something of a shapeshifting mass that I can never quite firmly grasp. In the minds of many, I’m confused. But I don’t see it that way. I’ve always been confident in my sexual orientation; it’s just changed over time. For the majority of my life, I was solely romantically and sexually linked to women. But in my late 20s, I started to experiment with men (something I’ve wanted to do for a long, long time) and really liked it. Now, I’m far more attracted to men than women, but who’s to say my sexual preference won’t sway again?

“It’s not uncommon for people’s sexual identities to change,” sex educator Erica Smith, M.Ed, tells NewNowNext. “I know this as a sexuality educator and because I’ve experienced it firsthand. I’ve identified as bisexual, lesbian, queer, and straight (when I was very young). It wasn’t until I was in my mid-30s that I relaxed into the knowledge that my sexual attractions are probably going to keep changing and shifting my whole life.”

According to Alisa Swindell, Ph.D. candidate and bisexual activist, it is not always our sexuality that changes. Usually, it’s our understanding of our sexuality that evolves when we explore what feels right to us. “Our understanding of gender and how it is expressed has been evolving at a rate that has not previously been known (or studied) and that is changing how we understand our own desires and responses to others,” she says.

Many outside factors can influence our sexuality. For instance, Swindell thinks many bisexuals are playing against a numbers game. “There are more people with other gender attractions than same-gender, so more often bisexual people end up in relationships with people of another gender and find it easier to pursue those relationships,” she says.

In her opinion, this sentiment is especially true for women, as there is still a lot of stigma toward bi women within lesbian communities. Men, however, experience a different set of challenges.

“Once [men] start dating [other] men, they often find themselves in social situations that are almost exclusively male and so meeting women becomes harder,” she adds, effectively summarizing my lived experience as a sexually active bisexual man. “Also, those men, like all of us, were socialized to respond to heterosexual norms. So many men who enjoy the queerness of the male spaces are still often attracted to heteronormative women who do not always respond to male bisexuality due to continuing stigma.”

The continuing stigma often pressures bisexuals to adopt a monosexual identity. Take Leslie, a “not super out” bisexual, as an example. Leslie dated a woman from her late teens to early 20s, keeping her sexual orientation a secret because her parents were conservative and she didn’t want to ruffle any feathers. As she revisits her past same-sex relationship with me, she has a realization: “In reflecting on all of that, I think deep down I thought that being with a man would just be easier.”

The bisexual Pride flag

Now married to a man, Leslie feels like she’s lost her bi identity, though she’s still attracted to different genders. “When I see people I follow online and find out they are bisexual I usually reach out and say, ‘I am, too!’ so I can collect sisters and brothers where I can,” she adds. “Otherwise, as I am cisgender-presenting I often feel like I don’t really have a say but I offer my support.”

This loss of identity is all too common. “Maintaining a recognized bisexual identity can be difficult as monosexuality is still the assumed norm,” Swindell says, noting that showing support—whether that looks like keeping up with issues that affect bisexuals, correcting people who mistakenly call bisexuals gay or straight, or encouraging our partners to not let that slide when it comes up with friends and family are all important for maintaining an identity—as Leslie has, is important to maintaining a bi identity. Smith adds this loss of identity may be attributed to a person’s own internalized biphobia, too.

“When it comes to sexuality in particular, there is rightfully a lot of autonomy given to people to self-identify. If someone self-identifies as queer or bisexual, none of their sexual or relational behavior, in of itself, alters that,” psychotherapist Daniel Olavarria, LCSW, tells NewNowNext. “Of course, there is also a recognition that by marrying someone of the opposite sex, for example, that this queer person is exercising a level of privilege that may alter their external experience in the world. As a result, this may have implications for how that person is perceived among queer and non-queer communities.”

Jodi’s experience as a bisexual person is more reflective of my own: She shares that she’s gone through stages where she only dates men, and others where she only dates women. Available studies suggest that only a minority of bisexuals maintain simultaneous relationships with both genders. In one report, self-identified bisexuals were asked if they had been sexually involved with both men and women in the past 12 months. Two-thirds said yes, and only one-third has been simultaneously involved with both genders.

As for a possible explanation? “It can be really difficult for us to find partners who are comfortable with us dating other genders at the same time,” Smith offers up as a theory.

“If I’m in a situation where I have to be exhibiting a lot of ‘masculine’ energy (running projects, being very in charge of things at work, etc.), then I tend to want to be able to be in more ‘feminine’ energy at home,” Jodi adds, clarifying that people of any gender identity can boast masculine and feminine energy. “Likewise, if my work life looks quieter and focused on more ‘feminine’ aspects such as nurturing and caregiving, I tend to want to exhibit a stronger more masculine presence while at home.”

Bisexuality is, in many ways, a label that can accommodate one’s experience on a sexuality spectrum. This allows for shifts based on a person’s needs or interests at any given point in their life. Perhaps “The Bisexual Manifesto,” published in 1990 from the Bay Area Bisexual Network, says it best:

Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.

Sexuality is complicated, and how we experience it throughout our lives is informed by a multitude of different factors—the exploration of power dynamics, craving certain types of sexual experiences, and social expectations can all influence our gender preferences at any given time, to name just a few. Much like our own bodies, our understanding of our sexual orientation will continue to grow.

I’ve come to accept this ongoing evolution as a wonderful and inevitable thing. Imagine having a completely static sexual orientation your entire life? Boring! Being able to explore your sexuality with wonderful people of all genders is intensely satisfying and uniquely insightful, no matter how many others try to denounce what you feel in your heart or your loins.

I didn’t choose the bi life; the bi life chose me. And I am grateful.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Am I Queer?

Here’s How To Tell

By Caroline Colvin

So, you’re not sure if you’re “bisexual,” “pansexual,” or “lesbian” to be exact, but you have an inkling you’re not strictly straight. If you’ve been wondering, “Am I queer?”, there is no simple answer to that question. On one hand, you might be able to pinpoint exactly which childhood female celebrity crush sparked a sexual awakening. Or maybe you distinctly remember a K-12 Valentine made with extra special care for a girl in your class. On the other hand, maybe you’ve shared a curious, impulsive kiss with a girl. Or maybe you’ve hooked up with another woman, either one-on-one or in a threesome, and have elected to ignore those implications. Whatever your case may be, there are def some aspects of your sexual and romantic attractions you can reflect on to answer that question.

Data from the Pew Research Center shows that more and more Americans are identifying as members of the LGBTQ+ community. As of 2017, a little more than 10 million people in the U.S. or 4.1% of Americans identified as LGBTQ+. That’s up from 8.3 million people or 3.5% of Americans in 2012, according to the same researchers. Interestingly enough, millennials lead the pack when it comes to identifying as queer. In 2017, LGBTQ media organization GLAAD found that 20% of 18- to 34-year-olds identify as LGBTQ+ in the U.S.

If you’re curious about whether you’re queer, here are some aspects of your desires to consider.

“Queer” can be how you identify

It’s important to know that “queer” can be an umbrella term. For example, you’ve possibly heard people use “the queer community” and “the LGBTQ+ community” interchangeably. It’s also important to know that “queer” can be the specific label you identify with — that’s the “Q” in “LGBTQ+!” The queer community includes people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and pansexual — so, anyone who isn’t straight. (This also includes folks who are transgender, non-binary, or two-spirit, so anyone who isn’t cisgender or the gender they were assigned at birth. But for the purposes of this article, we’re just going to focus on sexuality, which is separate from gender.)

When it comes to using “queer” as your label, sex and relationships therapist Courtney Watson, whose practice works specifically with LGBTQ+ people of color, says, “‘Queer is a term that offers the most fluidity in definition. [It also] allows for a sexuality identity that transcends discreet gender and sexual orientation categories.”

What you’ll notice romantically is…

One thing sexuality educator Jamie J. LeClaire emphasizes is that there isn’t just one way to be queer, especially when it comes to romantic orientation. You might be:

  • aromantic, which means you lack of romantic attraction completely,
  • biromantic or panromantic, meaning you feel romantically attracted to more than one gender,
  • or homorantic, meaning you feel romantically attracted to people of the same binary gender that you identify as.

Do you have warm and fuzzy feelings for a woman at work? Has romance just never been your jam? Do you dwell on how nice it would be to cuddle, hold hands with, and raise a dog with one your hot, charming non-binary friends? Queerness looks different for everyone, but LeClaire says, “If you find yourself developing romantically-fueled, crush-type feelings outside of the scope of heteroromanticism, you might be queer!”

What you might notice sexually is…

As LeClaire puts it, one of the main signs you might be queer is you catch yourself “fantasizing or desiring sexual intimacy, in any way outside of strict heterosexuality.” You might be:

  • asexual, meaning you lack sexual attraction completely,
  • bisexual or pansexual, meaning you’re sexually attracted to two or more genders,
  • or lesbian or gay, meaning you’re sexually attracted to people of the same or similar gender as you.

This might look like an interest in lesbian porn, or sexual fantasies with people of the same gender or similar genders. It could be as tame as daydreams of kissing a cute someone of the same gender (or a similar gender presentation) from one of your classes. This might be having zero or only a passing interest in sex at all. Queerness differs from person-to-person, but these are some things to consider about your sexual desires.

And don’t feel pressure to come out

“Generally speaking, ‘coming out’ is a never-ending process in today’s world, where people are harmfully assumed to be cisgender and heterosexual/allosexual,” LeClaire says.(Allosexual is term for folks who experience sexual attraction, unlike asexual folks.) “Do what is right and feels comfortable for you and your situation.”

Especially if you feel like your parents, guardians, or community will react badly (or even violently) to your newly acknowledged queerness, wait until you feel safe to do so.

“If you have the financial privilege to go to therapy, it can be an incredible tool for navigating the coming-out process,” LeClaire suggests. Cultivate a support system of friends or “chosen family” to have your back as you figure your queerness out. “Support can very well come from online queer communities if that’s all you can access, which are incredible resources as well.”

Whatever the case may be, don’t stress about labels

No matter what label you end up sticking with, Watson explains, “It’s also important to know that your attractions and identities can be fluid and change.” It’s why Alfred Kinsey, a famous sexologist, invented the Kinsey scale — a numbered spectrum between completely homosexual and completely heterosexual — to help queer people express how they felt. Because even in 1948, people were realizing that no two bisexuals loved and desired people in the same exact way, and that sexuality evolves.

“As for how to find a label that works for you, think about what you feel most deeply resonates for you right now,” Watson says. You can identify as bisexual today, but pansexual a year from now. You might feel comfortable with the lesbian label at first, but then realize you’re also asexual — so then you feel good about “gay and asexual” or “homoromantic asexual,” or no labels at all.

The word you pick for you identity is not a “life-long stamp.” Keeping that in mind can help take the pressure off.

What’s more, Watson says, “You can have an identity regardless of your current partner’s gender/sexual orientation.” You might be dating a man and still have sexual desires for women. You might be dating a lesbian woman and feel genderqueer. Who you’re dating at any given time doesn’t take away from who you are and how you feel comfortable identifying.

At the end of the day, LeClaire says, “Gender and sexuality are more than a spectrum. They are a universe of opportunities to live, love, and be loved.” Keeping this in mind can help you embrace and celebrate your queerness in a positive, reaffirming way.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

‘Gay gene’ theories belong in the past – now we know sexuality is far more fluid

Gender norms imprison us all, dictating our behaviour for fear of abuse – and that extends to who we sleep or fall in love with

By

It turns out that genetics is almost as complicated as love and sex. New research has shown that the long fabled “gay gene” does not exist; that a variety of different genes contribute to same-sex attraction, and that several other factors are in the mix too.

For many LGBTQ people – myself included – the very notion of this study sets off big queer alarm bells, though it should be noted researchers worked closely with LGBTQ groups. As early as 1993, the Daily Mail – and mock it all you like, it’s one of the country’s main newspapers – published an article under the headline “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ findings”. In the age of supposed “designer babies”, what if the hatefully inclined chose to make sure their unborn child wasn’t gay or bisexual?

Then there’s the old homophobic trope that people “choose” to be gay, and that falling in love with someone of the same gender is a “lifestyle choice” – a perverse myth long used to punish LGBTQ people and fuel the horror of so-called gay conversion therapy. It is reassuring, then, that the study isn’t suggesting that how children are raised by their parents determines their sexuality: one environmental factor that’s been previously researched is that foetal development in the womb may have a significant impact, for instance.

But while the research may be interesting, it is surely irrelevant. Believing that LGBTQ people choose their sexuality belongs in the same bin as flat-Earthism and climate emergency denial. All LGBTQ people grow up in homophobic societies, whether that bigotry is imposed by coercive social attitudes or by the state. Almost all of us endure agonising periods marked by fear and shame, and struggled to come out to ourselves, let alone our family, friends and society: the idea we opted out of heterosexuality for a bit of a laugh is clearly fantasy.

What is more interesting is that we will not know how fluid sexuality truly is until homophobia – and its parent, sexism, because it’s really about enforcing gender norms – is vanquished. Of course there are many who believe their sexuality is effectively fixed as straight or gay. Not so for bisexuals – and for others, their sexuality is more fluid still. The experiences of men and women differ markedly here. Although younger men are more comfortable showing feelings for each other, many men still fear that even expressing affection for another guy will have them pejoratively labelled as exclusively gay. Women who have attraction towards other women, meanwhile, are objectified and sexualised: it’s a crude sexual fantasy for men.

The polling shows that younger people are increasingly less likely to identify as heterosexual, a symptom of growing emancipation. According to YouGuv survey this year, while 83% of 18 to 24-year-olds in Britain identified as heterosexual just four years ago, now only 75% do, with 16% now self-describing as bisexual, an astonishing 14 points higher than 2015.

Sexual and gender norms imprison us all, dictating our behaviour for fear of reprisal – abuse or even violence – and that extends to who we sleep with or fall in love with. When the struggle for freedom succeeds, those boundaries will finally be overcome.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

What straight people need to know about going to gay bars

It’s great you want to support your queer friend, but all those looking for a GBF: listen up.

By Grace Walsh

As a gay person, knowing my straight friends want to come to LGBTQ+ bars and spaces fills my heart with joy. I appreciate the accepting atmosphere that these spaces create, and I love that my friends want to show their support of me and my community so openly in them.

I came out just before starting university, having made wonderful (and very straight) friends during my time at college. I was worried they would treat me differently after I came out, or be freaked out thinking I either hated men or fancied one of them. Luckily, neither one of those age-old stereotypes came true, and actually I didn’t give them enough credit. It turned out most of them knew I was gay long before I did.

But recently, when I took a group of them to Soho in London for a night out, I realised even the most well-intentioned, supportive straight/cis friends can miss the mark entirely. One of my male friends came back from the bar carrying drinks and a phone number, written on a napkin. He loudly demanded to know why the bartender had thought he’d be interested because after all, he didn’t “look gay”. Sigh.

Later on, we went to dance at another bar. On a small side stage, men in cowboy costumes were dancing. Before I knew it, another friend was dancing between them and trying to take a hat from one of their heads. Awkward side glances and a request for her to get down followed.

After another friend who was feeling queasy and asked me (the only actual LGBTQ+ person in the group) to go outside with her, I left feeling let down and a little pissed off. They’d been so supportive of me for so many years, yet they’d made me – and others around us – feel uncomfortable, in a space that I had invited them into.

I could go to “straight” bars with my friends, and I often do. But there’s something quite special about being able to hold my girlfriend’s hand or kiss her without double takes from passers-by (or the horrifying offer of a ménage à trois). That’s why queer spaces and bars are important to me and many other members of the LGBTQ+ community. It’s where we can be in the majority for once, where we can feel the most comfortable and protected, and where we have the most access to music by early noughties queer icons – an integral element for survival. These spaces give people who can’t be “out” publicly for whatever reason somewhere they can truly be themselves. These are places where trans and gender nonconforming folk can hopefully feel physically safe and recognised, away from a world that isn’t always so accepting.

For Meg-John Barker, author of Life Isn’t Binary and expert on gender, sex and relationships, queer spaces are vital. “LGBTQ+ people often become used to having to come out repeatedly, to being asked intrusive questions about their bodies and sex lives and being treated as an object for people (the weird one in the office, or the gay best friend, for example). It’s understandable that they might want some spaces where they don’t have to worry about that stuff. Where they can assume that everyone will ‘get it’, relax and breathe easy,” they say.

How to behave as a straight person in an LGBTQ+ space

So, you want to support your queer friend in the space they love and have a boogie to Whitney Houston? That’s fabulous. But here’s how to do it while being respectful and considerate of the space you’re in.

Think about your motivations for going

If you’re there on safari and looking “to see something strange and exotic to you or you’re there to exploit the coolness of LGBTQ+ culture in some way” as Meg-John puts it, then maybe take your night out down the road instead.

“I’ve tried to buy a drink for/ask for a number from several women in queer spaces, who have turned out to be straight. Instead of politely declining, I’ve often been made to feel like a gross pervert for even suggesting they might be queer and interested,” says 22-year-old Becca, a bisexual student from Oxford. “I’ve also taken straight friends to queer clubs and been horrified and embarrassed when they react inappropriately when someone has assumed they’re queer

Meg-John says your reason for wanting to go to a queer space should be to “support your LGBTQ+ friend who is keen for you to go along.” They add it’s fine “if you want to learn something, or it’s an event that’s particularly looking for allies to support it and the people going.

Check whether you’re actually welcome there

For straight, cis people, the world really is your oyster! You can pretty much go anywhere and everywhere without worrying that you’ll be physically or verbally assaulted because of your sexual or gender orientation. Meg-John explains, “Don’t go to [a queer space] with your straight, cis partner and get off together very publicly. Remember that everyday spaces are safe for you in a way they aren’t for the rest of the people there.”

Luke, a 27-year-old gay writer, says queer spaces have become somewhat of a tourist attraction for hen dos. And this can cause a lot of problems. “If you’re thinking of going to a queer space as a primarily straight, cis hen do – just don’t do it,” he says. “I’ve been to numerous nights were a group of be-sashed, wasted white chicks show up and start shrieking. It really changes the vibe. Having a hen party there makes everyone feel that they’re a spectacle on display for someone else’s enjoyment and entertainment, which isn’t much fun

When hen parties invade queer spaces, they bring the gaze of the outside world with them. This means we have to go back to monitoring the way we behave, in spaces that are supposed to belong to us.”

Educate yourself before you go

Even if you think you know everything about every identity under the LGBTQ+ acronym, do your homework Meg-John says. “There are plenty of videos out there about things LGBTQ+ people are sick of hearing, or what not to ask them, as well as easy 101 introductions to language,” they add.

There’s no shame in not knowing something about a community unfamiliar to you, but there’s plenty of shame in asking a same-sex couple an ignorant question steeped in stereotypes like, “Who’s the man in the relationship?” Believe me, it still happens.

“I was once at a gay club with some straight friends celebrating our friend’s 21st. Perhaps trying to be supportive and ‘in touch’ with the birthday boy’s sexuality, they started throwing phrases like ‘Yaaaaaas queen’ around to all the camp men, assuming they’d respond positively,” says Ellen, a recent graduate who identifies as bisexual. While you may think this referencing of queer culture by straight people is totally harmless, not all LGBTQ+ people agree.

“Many queer folk are tired of hearing such over-used drag queen lingo,” Ellen adds. “And they don’t owe it to you to respond if they aren’t comfortable, especially in their own safe spaces.”

Treat people queer people like you would anyone else

Meg-John says you should avoid going to queer bars if your intention is “to flirt or get off with somebody LGBTQ+ because you’re curious, or want to have a story to tell. This involves treating people as objects for your pleasure, not full human beings.”

Ed, a 22-year-old bisexual teacher, has experienced this kind of behaviour first hand. “I have experienced problems with straight women using me a bit like a shiny new handbag. They just pull me over and are very tactile. They randomly dance with me before ushering friends to take pictures of us dancing without asking me. Then they can get frustrated when I try to walk away!”

Pansexual sex educator Topher, 30, agrees that although this behaviours is common, it can be really harmful. “I was in a very famous gay pub in Soho, resting on my boyfriend’s chest when a drunk, straight-presenting lady informed us of how attractive we were as a couple,” he says. “I said, ‘Thank you’, and turned my head away back to him.

“This is when I felt her hand run up the back of my T-shirt and down my back, before attempting to squeeze my bum. We shoved her off, and she acted very shocked to have been corrected while sexually assaulting me in public. I felt invaded and we left. One of my biggest issues with it, other than the assault, was that this was my boyfriend’s first experience of a proper gay bar and what he’d witnessed was unpleasant.”

Don’t take over the space

“Don’t go with your straight, cis mates and take up a lot room in the venue with your bodies or your noise,” Meg-John says. “Many people will feel less safe if you’re doing that. Be considerate of places with a maximum capacity that are already pretty full, too. It’s better to let LGBTQ+ people be the people who get to use the space,” they add.

So, maybe trying to get you and six of your friends into G-A-Y on Pride weekend is an idea to rethink

The morning after my night out I was presented with a bacon sandwich and some sheepish looks. Hopefully my next trip to Soho will be more successful, with a lot less eye rolling and quick escapes out of the side exit

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!