Tag: Sexual Orientation

Posted on

What Does It Mean To Be Sapiosexual?

4 Telltale Signs

By Mary Retta

If you’re confused about sapiosexuality, you’re not alone. Even as people gain more awareness of LGBTQ+ identities, this one rarely enters the common conversation. Here’s everything you need to know about being sapiosexual.

What is sapiosexual?

People who are sapiosexual are physically and emotionally turned on by intelligence. Sapiosexuals think that intelligence is the most attractive trait and value it more than a potential partner’s looks or even personality.

“Sapiosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by sexual and erotic attraction to potential partners who are, first and foremost, intelligent,” sex and relationship therapist Casey Tanner, LCPC, tells mbg. “In these cases, intelligence is the genuine ‘turn-on,’ not the status, job, or financial benefits that might accompany intelligence.”

Signs of sapiosexuality:

1. You are drawn to a potential partner’s intelligence more than looks or personality.

Sapiosexuals are most drawn to or turned on by another person’s intellect, according to Kryss Shane, LMSW, dual-licensed social worker and LGBTQ+ expert. “A sapiosexual person may be more interested in discussing books or politics with someone on a first date rather than trying to begin a sexual relationship immediately,” she says. “They may have an online dating profile that focuses more on their career or their academic goals than on trying to find someone to engage in sex with.”

If you find yourself most drawn to someone’s intellect, this is a very good sign you are sapiosexual.

2. Intellectual conversations turn you on.

Sapiosexuals are not only drawn to a potential partner’s intellect—they are often physically turned on by intelligence. If political debates or long discussions about literature really get you in the mood for sex, this is another sign that you are sapiosexual.

“For sapiosexual folks, intelligence isn’t just icing on the cake for an already attractive partner; it is intelligence itself that drives arousal,” Tanner says. “Sapiosexual individuals not only enjoy intellectual conversation; they might also feel aroused by it.”

3. You need to have an intellectual discussion before sex crosses your mind.

For most sapiosexual people, it’s impossible to feel comfortable dating or getting intimate with someone before you’ve had a good, long cerebral chat.

“Sapiosexual people might find that it’s difficult to connect sexually with a potential partner until they’ve engaged in some form of intellectual discussion,” Tanner says. “Intellectual connection may be considered far more effective foreplay than even physical touch.”

If you struggle to connect with a potential partner before chatting about their favorite books or political views, this is good sign you might be sapiosexual.

4. Intellectual spark is more important to you than even the emotional spark.

Often, sapiosexuality can be confused with demisexuality, an orientation characterized by only experiencing sexual attraction to someone after making an emotional connection with them. While there is some overlap between the two orientations, there is also a distinct difference.

“Sapiosexuality is the need to build an intellectual attraction before a sexual attraction will occur, while demisexuality is the need to build an emotional connection before a sexual attraction will occur,” Shane explains. “For a sexual attraction to begin, a sapiosexual person is seeking someone on the same intellectual level they are on, whereas a demisexual person is seeking someone who will share their feelings and emotions.”

Is sapiosexual a real sexual orientation?

Despite sapiosexuality entering discussions about sexual identity more and more, there are many who still do not view sapiosexuality as a real orientation. Some queer people have also argued that sapiosexual people should not be included in the LGBTQ+ umbrella because it’s not related to gender preferences in the same way identities like pansexual, heteroflexible, and others clearly are. However, some sexuality experts advocate that sapiosexuality is a valid orientation and should be considered as such.

“Sapiosexuality is not an orientation in that orientation is about the gender identity of the partner or potential partner,” Shane explains. “A sapiosexual person can identify as gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, or greysexual. Sapiosexuality is how the person develops their attraction to someone. It is the how, not the who, of their attraction experience.”

“As a sex therapist, I make it a priority not to yuck someone’s yum, so to speak,” Tanner adds. “And as a queer person, I know what it feels like to have my orientation invalidated. I just don’t see a need to devalue something that is true for someone else.”

Ultimately, labels are only helpful if they allow you to feel more comfortable and confident in your sexuality. If the term “sapiosexual” feels right and valid to you, then you should use it.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Sexuality Terminology

Someone who experiences little or no sexual attraction to others and / or has a lack of interest in sexual relationships or behaviour. Different to being celibate. Often shortened to ‘ace’.

Someone who is emotionally, romantically and / or sexually attracted to people of their gender and other genders. This attraction does not have to experienced equally across all genders. Often shorted to ‘bi’. Whilst similar to pansexual, they involve different histories and associated communities.

Someone who is emotionally, romantically and / or sexually attracted to people regardless of their gender or sex. This attraction does not have to experienced equally across all genders. Often shorted to ‘pan’. Whilst similar to bisexual, they involve different histories and associated communities.

Someone who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others and / or has a lack of interest in romantic relationships or behaviour.

Someone who only experiences sexual attraction after they have established an emotional or romantic bond with a person.

Someone who is emotionally, romantically and / or sexually attracted to members of the same gender and / or sex. Can also be used as an umbrella term for those who don’t identify as straight or heterosexual.

Someone who is involved in emotional, romantic and / or sexual relationships with multiple partners, with the consent of all those involved. Can take many forms and is different to ‘open relationships’

An umbrella term that can describe anyone who is not straight and / or cisgender or anyone who does not find their identity under a single label or labels.

A woman who is emotionally, romantically and / or sexually attracted to other women.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

A short history of the word ‘bisexuality’

By Martha Robinson Rhodes

People have been attracted to more than one gender throughout recorded history. But specific identity labels like bi and pan are relatively new. How did bi+ people in the past understand their identities and attractions, and how does this history affect bi people and communities in the UK today?
Our Research Officer Martha Robinson Rhodes, who has a PhD in bi history, explains…

In 1859, anatomist Robert Bentley Todd first used the term ‘bisexuality’ to refer to the possession of ‘male’ and ‘female’ physical characteristics in the same body – today, we might understand this as being intersex. This meaning was taken up by nineteenth-century sexologists – scientists and psychologists studying sex and sexuality, including Henry Havelock Ellis and Richard von Krafft-Ebing – who explored evolution and speculated about “the latent organic bi-sexuality in each sex”, noting that “at an early stage of development, the sexes are indistinguishable”.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, this meaning had shifted to focus on a combination of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ gendered characteristics – what today we would describe as androgyny. The modern meaning of bisexuality, which describes sexual and/or romantic attraction rather than sexed or gendered characteristics, only developed in the 1910s. However, for many years the different meanings of bisexuality were used at the same time and sometimes in the same texts. Sigmund Freud made his famous claim about ‘universal’ bisexuality in 1915, but referred to this both as a combination of masculinity and femininity and as a sexual or romantic attraction, writing, “the sexual object is a kind of reflection of the subject’s bisexual nature”.

But if people in the past didn’t use the term ‘bi’, how did people attracted to more than one gender describe themselves?

There is no simple answer to this question. Some didn’t use an identity label at all, preferring not to categorise their relationships. Some understood themselves as heterosexual, while others identified as gay or lesbian. Others described themselves using percentages or ratios, such as ‘60:40 gay:heterosexual’. When the term ‘gay’ was first popularised by gay liberationists in the 1970s, it often linked radical politics and same-gender attraction, but didn’t necessarily exclude people who were attracted to, or had relationships with, multiple genders.

One interviewee I spoke to during my PhD recalled: “There was a general understanding that sexuality was some sort of spectrum, and that people would move along it from time to time”. It’s also important to note that this terminology is particular to English-speakers in the West, and that elsewhere in the world there has been a diverse range of approaches to sexuality and gender that often reject binary categorisations. In many cases, these approaches have been restricted or prohibited as a legacy of colonialism.

It wasn’t until the late 1970s that the current meaning of bisexuality, meaning attraction to more than one gender, became widely accepted in the UK as “the more common usage”. Around this point, we started to see bi groups and events being established. The UK’s first bi group, London Bisexual Group, was formed in 1981, followed by other groups in Edinburgh (1984), Brighton (1985), Manchester (1986) and Glasgow (1988), as well as a London-based Bisexual Women’s Group. A magazine, Bi-Monthly, was founded, as well as two bi helplines in London and Edinburgh, and the UK’s longest continually-running LGBTQ+ community event, the annual BiCon.

Bi terminology and politics have continued to evolve since the 1980s.

The term ‘pansexual’ became popular in the 1990s in response to concerns about bisexuality upholding the gender binary, using the prefix ‘pan’ (‘all’) to suggest attraction that is not limited by gender. But this doesn’t mean that bi people are therefore only attracted to two genders. Some people attracted to more than one gender identify as both bi and pan, some as one or the other, and some as neither. The 1990 manifesto of Anything that Moves, a US bi magazine, explicitly stated that bisexuality shouldn’t be understood as binary: “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”.

Today, we still see the complex history of bisexuality and the shifting use of language being used to erase bi people’s identities, or suggest that they are a ‘phase’. This has hugely damaging effects on bi people and communities. Stonewall’s Bi Report shows that bi people often report not feeling welcome in LGBTQ+ spaces, and experience much higher rates of discrimination from within the LGBTQ+ community. 43% of bi people have never attended an LGBTQ+ space or event, compared to 29% of gay men and lesbians. Research also indicates that bi people are also more likely to experience poor mental health, in part because of this erasure and discrimination.

Changing language should never be used as an excuse to dismiss or reject bi or pan people’s identities and attractions. One of my interviewees summed this up as: “Language evolves. September isn’t the seventh month. October isn’t the eighth month. Bisexual doesn’t mean two genders”.

Instead, understanding how language and communities have evolved reminds us that there is exciting potential for further change and progress in the future, towards greater equality for bi people and other LGBTQ+ people. For me, exploring and understanding this change is what makes learning about our history so important – in LGBT+ History Month, and all year round.

References and further reading

  • Bi Academic Intervention (ed), The Bisexual Imaginary: Representation, Identity and Desire (1997)
  • Shiri Eisner, Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution (2013)
  • Sigmund Freud translated by James Strachey, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality: 1. The Sexual Aberrations (1915 edition)
  • Kate Harrad (ed), Purple Prose: Bisexuality in Britain (2016)
  • Henry Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex Volume I: Sexual Inversion (1897)
  • Clare Hemmings, Bisexual Spaces: A Geography of Sexuality and Gender (2002)
  • Lachlan MacDowall, ‘Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality’, Journal of Bisexuality (2009)
  • The Off Pink Collective (ed), Bisexual Horizons: Politics, Histories, Lives (1996)
  • Paula C. Rust, Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics (1995)
  • Martha Robinson Rhodes, ‘Bisexuality, Multiple-Gender-Attraction and Gay Liberation Politics in the 1970s’ (2020)
  • Merl Storr (ed), Bisexuality: A Critical Reader (1999)
  • Naomi Tucker (ed), Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries and Visions (1995)

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Research confirms men with older brothers are more likely to be gay, suggesting same-sex attraction has a biological basis

By and

New research shows having a greater number of older brothers increases the probability of a person entering a same-sex union at some point in their lives.

This finding, detailed in our paper published today in the Journal of Sex Research, offers a rare insight into the origins of sexual orientation.

The origins of sexual orientation

In recent decades, many countries have achieved remarkable progress towards equal treatment of LGBTIQ+ people, including greater public support and more protective legislation. But despite these encouraging developments, sexual minorities still experience high levels of stigma – and the origins of sexual orientation remain a matter of debate.

A growing body of research is attempting to shed light on why some people experience same-sex sexual attraction and others don’t. These studies have substantial implications for public opinion and debate, and subsequently the treatment of LGBTIQ+ people.

For example, we know people who view sexual orientation as a product of biological factors (such as hormones or genetics) are more likely to support sexual minorities and their civil rights, compared to those who view it as a product of social factors or individual choice.

The fraternal birth order effect

The “fraternal birth order effect” is one of the most well-documented patterns supporting a biological origin of human sexual orientation. This longstanding hypothesis proposes men’s propensity for homosexuality increases with the number of older biological brothers they have.

This effect has been attributed to a mother’s immune reaction to proteins produced by a male foetus. The proteins enter the mother’s bloodstream and trigger the production of antibodies that influence the sexual development of subsequent children.

These maternal antibodies accumulate over successive pregnancies with male foetuses, which means men with more older brothers are more likely to experience same-sex sexual attraction.

However, previous research documenting the fraternal birth order effect has relied on small and selective participant samples, which has led some scholars to question the authenticity of the phenomenon. Indeed, no study of a representative population sample has supported its existence – until now.

Our research

Our research used unique data from Dutch population registers. These data allowed us to follow the life trajectories of more than nine million people born between 1940 and 1990.

In previous studies we used this dataset to examine whether the gender of a married couple’s children affected the stability of their union, and to compare the academic performance of children raised by same- and different-sex couples. This time, we used it to provide a robust test of the fraternal birth order effect.

While the data did not contain direct measures of individuals’ sexual orientation, they did indicate whether they ever entered a same-sex marriage or registered partnership. We used this information as a proxy for homosexuality.

In the Netherlands, registered same-sex partnerships have been recognised since 1998, and same-sex marriage since 2001.

What we found

Our results show clear evidence of a fraternal birth order effect on homosexuality. Specifically, men with one older brother are 12% more likely to enter a same-sex union than men with one older sister, and 21% more likely than men with just one younger brother or sister.

The birth order and total number of siblings matter too. Men who are the youngest sibling are more likely to enter a same-sex union than men who are the oldest sibling, and the differences grow larger as the total number of siblings increases.

For example, the probability of a man entering a same-sex union is 41% greater if he has three older brothers, as opposed to three older sisters, and 80% greater than if he has three younger brothers.

The chart below illustrates some of our findings, showing the number of men who entered same-sex unions among those with up to three siblings. The sex of older siblings wields a considerable influence over same-sex union formation. On the other hand, the sex of younger siblings plays little to no role.

Data cover men born in the Netherlands between 1940 and 1990. The underlying statistical model accounts for birth year differences. This rules out the possibility that our results are due to age differences between the groups. Whiskers denote 95% confidence intervals.

Unlike earlier studies which focused almost exclusively on men, we documented the same pattern of results among women. We found women are also more likely to enter a same-sex union if they have older brothers.

This finding yields tentative support to arguments that maternal antibodies and foetal proteins also interact to influence womens’ sexual development.

What does it all mean?

Our results tell a clear and consistent story: the number and sex of one’s siblings play an important role in the development of their sexuality.

This evidence aligns squarely with perspectives that emphasise sexual orientation as an innate trait and a reflection of a person’s true self, rather than a product of “lifestyle choices” or a “fashion trend” as some suggest.

Of course, in an ideal society, the rights and respect people are afforded should not depend on whether their sexual identity is “innate” or “a choice”. But unfortunately, these issues still loom large in contemporary debate, further highlighting the importance of our findings.

A biological basis for human sexuality suggests harmful practices like conversion therapy can’t alter someone’s sexual orientation. It also discredits claims homosexuality can be “taught” (such as through sexual diversity education at schools) or “passed on” (such as through same-sex couples adopting children).

We acknowledge the diverging opinions on the value of research concerning the origins of human sexuality. Some feel such research is irrelevant because the findings should have no bearing on public attitudes or legislation, while others reject it for more hostile reasons.

Like others before us, we consider this research essential. Understanding the mechanisms behind sexual orientation can offer insights into what makes people who they are, and helps normalise the full spectrum of human sexual diversity.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Should You Come Out To Your Doctor?

Here’s Why Your Doctor Needs To Know If You’re LGBT+


By Laken Brooks

In 2017, Jaden Fields went to the gynecologist. Jaden worried that he might have fibroids or another serious medical issue, but the gynecologist dismissed both Jaden’s physical pain and his gender identity. Jaden is a transgender man and health advocate, and he recollects his experience in an Insider article: “The doctor said it’s a shame I would never be able to have children because ‘this kind of thing [gender-affirming hormone treatment] makes people sterile.’ Even though I came in complaining of pain in my uterus and was concerned about fibroids, she didn’t believe me and said maybe it wasn’t as bad as I claimed.”

The threat of medical discrimination often dissuades LGBTQ+ people from coming out to medical professionals. Closeted patients may miss out on valuable health information if they don’t inform their doctor about their gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation.

Should LGBTQ+ patients come out to their doctors? How can your practitioner offer you better medical care when they know about your gender identity and your sexual orientation?

Why Some LGBTQ+ People Dread Medical Appointments

An LGBTQ+ person may hesitate to come out to their gynecologist if they worry that their doctor will treat them unfairly based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. For example, Jaden told Insider that he had been mistreated during gynecologist visits on several occasions: “For years, I hadn’t been to the gynecologist because I didn’t want to go through the kinds of experiences I’ve had with medical providers in the past, like being misgendered, asked invasive questions, and not being given clear answers to [my medical] concerns.”

Jaden’s experiences are part of a larger problem of transphobia and homophobia in the healthcare industry. Axios reports that over ⅓ of LGBTQ+ Americans say that they’ve had a negative experience at a doctor’s office. These experiences can include traumatic situations like sexual harassment, being misgendered, doctors who are uneducated about LGBTQ+ issues, and doctors who outright refuse to treat LGBTQ+ patients. LGBTQ+ people may feel even more uncomfortable when they’re visiting a gynecologist. Many doctors prioritize treating fibroids, endometriosis, and other menstrual conditions when these illnesses are prevent a woman from having biological children.

This narrow focus on fertility and gender may isolate LGBTQ+ people. Jaden says, “My experience with that gynecologist soured me on even thinking about my reproductive health.” Many LGBTQ+ people report avoiding preventative treatments and gynecological screenings because they fear that they, too, will be judged, harassed, or misunderstood by their doctor. But when LGBTQ+ people don’t feel comfortable being open and honest with their doctors, they may not receive the reproductive care that they need.

The Potential Benefits of Coming Out to Your Doctor

If LGBTQ+ people worry about medical discrimination, they may wonder why they would need to risk coming out to their doctor in the first place. Some transgender men like Jaden may avoid visiting a gynecologist because the appointment may trigger gender dysphoria. If you’re a trans man, that distress can spike when someone refuses to call you by your pronouns or when a practitioner refers to your uterus as “women’s parts.”

However, your doctor needs to know about your gender, sex, and sexuality to provide you with the best possible care. Different people need different doses of medicine depending on their metabolism. Sometimes, biological sex can impact the way your body reacts to medication. People who have vaginas tend to have more body fat than people born with penises; medication that is “fat-soluble” may take more or less time than expected to take effect. However, people who have penises may respond better to antifungal medicines because these patients have more gastric acid than patients who have vaginas.

If a transgender person has menstrual problems or pelvic pain, they may wait to seek medical care until their symptoms become unbearable. But that patient may have a serious chronic condition. If a chronic illness like endometriosis is causing that patient’s pain, it is vital that they seek early diagnosis to prevent further tissue damage in the uterus, bowels, and other organs. Illnesses can worsen over time when they are left untreated, and living in pain can reduce a patient’s quality of life. When a transgender patient trusts that they will receive equal care, without discrimination, that patient may be more likely to seek prompt medical care.

Sexually active LGBTQ+ patients who have a supportive doctor may feel more comfortable asking questions about safe sex and STI tests.

Patients who are on hormone therapy will also need to consult their gynecologist. Some transgender men and nonbinary people opt for testosterone treatments. Patients can take testosterone alongside hormonal birth control or other hormone therapies. But if a gynecologist does not know that their patient is taking testosterone, they may accidentally prescribe unsafe or ineffective hormone treatments.

Resources for LGBTQ+ Patients

Gynecology visits can be vulnerable and distressing, especially for LGBTQ+ people. Coming out is a difficult choice. Some patients may not feel like they can trust their doctor with this personal information. If you’re seeking a supportive doctor in your area, consider asking your local LGBTQ+ center for recommendations. Some LGBTQ+ health centers provide gynecological exams, chest cancer screenings, and other gender-inclusive medical visits.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Why the Kinsey Scale still matters 70 years on

— And what every queer person needs to know about it

Two Barry sisters read review of the Alfred Kinsey Report on Women over the shoulder of Beverly Lawrence

If you’re like most people, you’ve probably heard the phrase “sexuality is a spectrum”. In a way, we have Dr Alfred Kinsey to thank for that.

By Matthias Walsh

In 1948, American biologist Dr Kinsey and associates Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin developed the Kinsey Scale. Also known as the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, the seven-point scale was created to represent the team’s findings from years of research – that human sexuality was not as black and white as it was originally thought to be.

Kinsey’s highly controversial work ushered in a new era of studies on sexuality, thus earning him the title of “father of sexology”. But over 70 years later, does Kinsey’s work still hold up? Is the Kinsey scale still a reliable representation of the spectrum of sexual orientation? Or has it become a relic of the past?

Who was Dr Kinsey?

Dr Alfred Charles Kinsey was an American biologist and professor at Indiana University. Prior to his work on human sexual behaviour, Kinsey spent 20 years as an entomologist, collecting and identifying dozens of species of gall wasps.

It wasn’t until the early 1930s that Kinsey became interested in the study of sexuality. At this point, he began teaching sexual education classes to graduate, senior, and married students, where he would also hand out questionnaires for his research on sexual histories.

By 1947, Kinsey established the Institute for Sex Research (now known as the Kinsey Institute). Armed with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey and his team pored over hundreds and thousands of sex histories to study sexual relationships and sexual behaviour in the human world.

Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and His Staff
Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey (white shirt) working with his staff on the final phases of his book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Behavior (Getty)

What is the Kinsey Scale?

The Kinsey Scale is a visual representation of the research findings that Kinsey and company published in Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (1948). Together with Sexual Behavior of the Human Female (1953), the two books became collectively known as the Kinsey Reports. Considered some of the most influential scientific books of the century, the Kinsey Reports sold almost 1 million copies and were translated to 13 languages.

According to Discover Magazine, Kinsey’s research found that 37 per cent of men had been in a same-sex experience by the age of 45, while 13 per cent of women had had a same-sex encounter. As explained by the Kinsey Institute, the reports showed that “sexual behaviour, thoughts, and feelings towards the same or opposite sex were not always consistent across time”.

As such, the Kinsey Scale broke free from what was the traditional categorisation of sexual orientation at the time – heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual – and instead presented the following broader seven-point rating system:

0 – Exclusively heterosexual
1 – Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 – Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 – Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 – Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 – Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 – Exclusively homosexual
X – No socio-sexual contacts or reactions

“The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats”, wrote Kinsey in the report. “Not all things are black nor all things white…only the human mind invents categories to force facts into separate pigeonholes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning sexual behaviour the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex”.

In short, Kinsey believed that sexual orientation was not as rigid as most people believed at the time. Instead, he saw that many people exhibited all types of sexual behaviour, even if it contradicted the labels with which they identified. As such, Kinsey sought to normalise the idea that sexual orientation is more akin to a spectrum than a strict binary.

Understandably, upon its release, Kinsey’s research was met with a lot of controversy. For many, Kinsey’s insistence that humans could be more than either gay or straight was an affront to everything they knew about themselves. It also meant that once you exhibited some type of homosexual behaviour – even if you didn’t identify as a homosexual or experienced same-sex attraction – then you could find yourself in some very hot water.

You have to remember that, at the time, homosexuality was considered illegal in most parts of the world, including the US and the UK. In fact, the main reference book in psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), didn’t remove homosexuality from its list of diagnoses until the early 70s.

An unidentified couple sit on the grass during the New York City Pride March, New York, New York, 1980s or 1990s. (Photo by Mariette Pathy Allen/Getty Images)

Is the Kinsey Scale test accurate?

So there is no such thing as a Kinsey Scale “test” or a Kinsey Scale “quiz”, per se. While it was once used to measure the balance of heterosexuality and homosexuality in a person relative to their history of sexual attraction and experience, it isn’t really used as a diagnostic tool anymore. Instead, think of it more as a representation of the sexual fluidity of human beings!

But if you really wanted to, technically speaking, you can study the scale and decide on your position on it.

Is the Kinsey Scale still relevant today?

The short answer: yes and no.

Kinsey and his associates moved the needle in terms of how a person’s sexual orientation is studied and understood. However, that doesn’t make their work infallible, especially when compared to what we know today.

Here’s how the scale misses the mark:

The scale fails to represent asexuals

On the Kinsey Scale, asexuals are lumped under the “X” rating, which is defined as people who have had “no socio-sexual contacts or reactions”. However, for many asexuals, this is simply not an accurate representation.

Asexuality is defined as the lack of sexual attraction to others. For many, asexuality is a sexual identity in the same way as being gay, lesbian, or bisexual are. It’s also considered an umbrella under which various forms of asexuality exist, from demisexuality (people who only feel sexually attracted to those they form emotional bonds with) to akoisexual (people who experience attraction but do not wish to have those feelings reciprocated).

The scale conflates sexual attraction and sexual activity, while leaving out sexual identity

Kinsey’s research focused mostly on the sexual behaviours that his interviewees acted upon. What he and his associates failed to consider was that sexual behaviour is not the same as sexual attraction. On top of this, one’s sexual feelings and behaviours do not necessarily reflect how one would identify.

The scale implies that attraction to one sex cancels out attraction to another

This is something that a lot of bisexual people have gripes with. The Kinsey Scale implies that the more attraction you have towards one gender, the less you have towards another. While behaviour can be measured (as in, you can count the number of sexual experiences a person has had), attraction is much harder to quantify.

This implication is especially frustrating for bisexual people who often feel invalidated by both gay and straight people. Many bisexuals feel that if their attraction is not a 50-50 split between the same and the opposite sex, that their bisexuality is somewhat invalid.

But take for example a bisexual woman who is attracted to both men and women but has only dated men exclusively. If you follow the scale, that woman is a “0 – exclusively heterosexual”, despite the fact that she feels sexual attraction to other women.

Kinsey Scale bisexual
People marching with anBi, a bisexual organisation, carry a bisexual flag in the 43rd L.A. Pride Parade in West Hollywood, California. (Getty)

Is there another sexuality scale aside from the Kinsey Scale test?

If you’re looking for a more nuanced model for identifying your sexual orientation, consider the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid and the Storms Scale. There are other scales out there – around 200 or so, in fact – but these two are by far the most popular.

The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid was first introduced in 1978 by psychiatrist and sex researcher Dr Fritz Klein. Appearing in his book The Bisexual Option, the Klein Grid was created as a learning tool to give people a more holistic understanding of the complexity of human sexuality. The Grid is made up of seven variables and three situations – past, present, and ideal.

The Storms Scale, on the other hand, was developed by psychologist Michael Storms in the early 80s. The scale focuses more on eroticism rather than sexual behaviour.

Does the Kinsey Scale still matter?

The Kinsey Scale was once a groundbreaking model of human sexuality at a time when the very idea of sexual orientation as anything but a binary was considered taboo. As such, it’s relevant in that it’s a seminal work in the field of sexology.

It’s also important to note that, for some people, having some kind of label or system of identification helps those who are questioning to better understand who they are and to find their “tribe”. In this way, the scale can still be a useful tool for those who are still exploring their sexuality.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

The Search for Gay Genes

— Should Queer People Support It?

Efforts from scientists trying to identify “gay genes” are part of a longstanding, problematic tradition of research focused on how minority groups are genetically different.

by and

To many of us, the attractions of gay sex are pretty obvious. But some scientists continue to wonder why people do it. If gay sex isn’t reproductive, why hasn’t natural selection weeded out all the queers? Why, after all this evolutionary time, isn’t everybody straight?

Increasingly, people think that sexuality is biologically innate. Sexual preferences shouldn’t be changed and they can’t be, simple as that. Per the famous Gaga refrain, we are “born this way.” Indeed, scientists may have helped to promote these beliefs. Some say not only that genes largely decide your sexuality, but also that genes help to explain why gay people exist at all.

Case in point: A recent paper published in Nature Human Behavior looked to see whether genes associated with having gay sex are also associated with having more reproductive sex. Specifically, its scientists were curious whether ‘gay genes’ in straight people could help straight people to have sex with more partners. They found that they do, as the genetic markers found in gay people were also found in those who see themselves as open to new experiences and risk-takers. In a nutshell, gay genes may exist because they help straight people get over their inhibitions and get laid more. This might explain why evolution hasn’t gotten round to pruning away the gays yet.

At this point, you might be laughing like us. But on a serious note, this study isn’t a one-off for this research team. In 2019, the same team published a study in Science about genes associated with ever having had gay sex. The study was highly publicized, receiving coverage from Nature, NYTimes, NPR and Slate. Outlets, quoting the study’s authors, proclaimed it to sound the death knell of the ‘gay gene.’

Far from doing that, the study shifted from searching for a single gay gene to looking for many gay genes. Like the recent Nature Human Behavior study, the 2019 Science study was a ‘genome-wide association study’ (GWAS). Using fancy statistics, the latest technologies, and a massive data set involving half a million people, the 2019 study concluded that there are five genes significantly associated with ever having had gay sex, and that the cumulative effects of thousands of genes might help to explain differences in sexual behavior. In other words, while the ‘gay gene’ might be dead, long live the ‘gay genome.’

Genetic research on sexuality and other complex behavior traits is growing fast. Some LGBTQ+ advocates claim it shows that being gay is “natural” and “not a choice,” and that the proliferation of sexual genetic research is something to straightforwardly celebrate.

However, we think the implications of this research are far more complicated. While both the Nature Human Behavior and Science studies were conducted by LGBTQ+ scientists with good intentions, they join a longstanding and problematic tradition of research focused on showing how minority groups are genetically different.

gay-genes-is-homosexuality-a-choice
A celebration in San Francisco after the Supreme Court decided same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits in June 2013.

Genetic research on homosexuality began in earnest in the 1990s. Scientists claimed that genes on the X chromosomes are associated with male homosexuality. Long before then, ‘eugenics,’ or social movements to control human reproduction in order to increase the “fitness” of national populations, played a role in the oppression of gay people. Eugenics research reached its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading to the forced sterilization and genocide of not only queer people, but also Jewish and disabled peoples in Nazi Germany, and largely Black, brown and immigrant peoples in the U.S. Even after the second world war, eugenic policies and movements continued to haunt LGBTQ+ communities. 

Today, most research agrees that a person’s sexuality is formed through a combination of social, biological and environmental factors. Yet many across the political spectrum continue to describe sexual preferences as biologically innate and fixed at birth. Some researchers suggest that those who believe sexual preferences are inborn tend to have more tolerant attitudes towards gay men and lesbians.

Others argue that “born this way” doesn’t actually increase people’s tolerance of sexual minorities. Instead, it is used to rationalize whatever beliefs people already have about sexuality, whether conservative or liberal. On one hand, it has helped to defend beliefs that queer people are less biologically fit, and therefore appropriate targets for reproductive control. On the other hand, “born this way” arguments have lent considerable support to LGBTQ+ advocacy. Campaigns to legally ban conversion therapy, a form of medical abuse that seeks to change someone’s sexual orientation, have successfully used “born this way” rhetoric to strengthen their cases.

In any event, increasing ‘tolerance’ towards queer people isn’t the goal. Instead of being tolerated, queer people should be fully accepted, embraced and celebrated. Feminist scholar Suzanna Walters reminds us that attitudes of tolerance towards sexual minorities may do more harm than good by implicitly othering them. It is telling that while there has long been a search for a gay gene, “no one is looking for a straight gene.” Scientists feel no need to explain the existence of straight people because it is assumed that straight people belong. By contrast, sexual minorities need an evolutionary rationale in order to belong.

Political scientist Joanna Wuest also notes that despite helping to ban conversion therapy, “born this way” arguments sometimes conflict with queer people’s own experiences. Many radical queers consider their sexual identity to be a choice entwined with their politics. Meanwhile, those with fluid identities and those who’ve questioned their sexuality for a long time have a hard time identifying with a picture of sexuality as stable, fixed, and innate. As political scientist Nina Hagel writes, “born this way” may uphold “untenable ideals of self-knowledge.” It may force people to get trapped on a side or pick a side before they are ready to.

Scientists feel no need to explain the existence of straight people because it is assumed that straight people belong. By contrast, sexual minorities need an evolutionary rationale in order to belong.

Soon after the publication of the 2019 Science study, an app claiming to be based on the study was developed that offered a “How Gay Are You?” genetic test through the online genetic prediction platform GenePlaza. We already see technology being developed that allows parents to pick embryos based on the embryos’ genomes and associated health risks. It is therefore not a far stretch of the imagination to also worry that genetic research on sexuality could eventually be used to develop tools to screen for and eliminate ‘gay embryos.’ 

We’re not saying that scientists should avoid researching sexuality. Many of us are understandably curious about where our desires come from, and science can help us to better understand each other as long as their research meets high standards. We are saying there’s no guarantee that today’s search for a gay genome will support queer liberation. Believing sexuality to be biologically innate might lead some to see LGBTQ+ people as biologically unfit. It’s difficult to know, as the political consequences of science are often complexly dependent on historical context. But for every person who uses “born this way” to win legal battles for gay rights, we know there is someone else who uses it to paint gay people as bad seeds of the human race.

Queer people should not uncritically celebrate research that gives new life to “born this way” arguments. Genetic research on sexuality is still in progress (and at this stage, a little laughable). Regardless, even if there is strong evidence we have yet to see, the idea that being gay is natural doesn’t guarantee the procurement of gay rights. It’s high time we moved the fight for LGBTQ+ recognition and survival away from the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate and into new directions. Millennials may have worshipped Lady Gaga, but many of us are ready to chant a new slogan.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Rare photos kept secret for over a century

When Hugh Nini and Neal Treadwell stumbled across a photo from the 1920s of two men in a tender embrace they thought it was one-of-a-kind. But things changed when they found more photographs. The result of their unexpected discovery is a moving book, portraying male romance over the course of a century.

Posted on

How to Explore Bisexuality If You’ve Only Ever Been in Gay Relationships

From one queer to another, it’s a minefield out there.

by Daisy Jones

There are some wild misconceptions about bisexual people. The first is that you’re either secretly gay or just experimenting. The second is that you are always the sexuality of your current relationship. (If someone’s partner was ginger, you wouldn’t assume they only fancy ginger people, would you?) And the third is that all bisexual people find it hard to act on their queer feelings.

Of course, that third point can be common (the world is still heteronormative, after all). But it’s not the Universal Bi Experience. Some bi or pansexual people have only ever been in same-gender relationships and wouldn’t even know where to begin when it comes to dating a different gender.

As someone who has only ever been in long-term relationships with other women – but who doesn’t necessarily fancy one gender – non-gay culture often looks weird and complicated. Why are men sometimes mean to women they like, for example? Do straight people have “tops” and “bottoms”? Is flirting the same, regardless of gender?? Truly, it’s a minefield out there.

With all of the above in mind, here’s a guide to exploring your bisexuality if you’ve only ever been in same-gender relationships, according to experts.

Remember that there isn’t just one way to be bi

The first thing a lot of bi people ask themselves is “but am I bi enough?” says Zachary Zane, sex columnist and sex expert for Promescent. Time to get rid of your preconceived notions about bisexuality. So what if you’ve only ever been in same-gender relationships? There isn’t some secret “bisexuality test” you need to pass.

“Bisexuality is a spectrum,” says Zane. “All too often, we have this idea that being bi means you’re equally attracted to men and women. That’s not the case – it’s also exclusionary of nonbinary folks!”

Maybe you’re romantically attracted to one gender, but sexually attracted to all genders. Maybe you only fancy more than one gender sometimes, but not always. It doesn’t matter. You’re bisexuality is still valid even if it doesn’t look like the next person’s.

Apps! Apps! Apps!

Not used to being in “straight” spaces? Wouldn’t know how to approach someone of a different gender? Wouldn’t want to be with someone who freaks out when you tell them you’ve only ever been in gay relationships? The great thing about no longer living in the nineties is that we get to bypass all of the aforementioned, with apps.

“I’d state either in your bio or early upon talking to someone that you’ve only hooked up with people of the same gender, so this is new to you,” says Zane.

“They may reject you afterward, and so be it, but otherwise, you’ll be nervous when meeting up or hooking up with someone of a different gender for the first time. You want to be as comfortable as possible during the meetup, and the best way to do that is to let them know you’re new to all this!”

It can be helpful to date other bi folk

On the other hand, if you can’t be arsed explaining to some straight girl or guy exactly how many times you’ve eaten pussy or dick, Zane says it can be helpful to mainly date or hook up with other bi folk.

“My advice to everyone bi is to date other bi folk!” he says. “Especially if you’ve experienced biphobia when trying to date. That’s why I recommend listing you’re bi on your dating bios, so you attract other bi folks. As a woman you will get fetishised and constantly solicited for threesomes – just go ahead and block. As a guy, you’ll have signinant fewer matches when you list you’re bi, but you’ll notice you’ll match with many more bi folk, or you’ll match with men, women and non-binary folks who love dating bi guys!”

You might feel uncomfortable at first – and that’s normal

Every sexual and/or romantic experience is going to be different, regardless of gender or genitals or whatever else. That said, it’s normal and fine to feel nervous about hooking up or dating a different gender when you’re so used to living, laughing and loving with your own.

“We have to allow ourselves to sit with that discomfort,” says Tawney Lara, a bisexual sober sex and relationships writer. “I’m a big fan of honesty and communication. Tell your date or potential hook-up that you’re nervous or anxious. If they’re cold about it, they’re not worth your time. If they’re willing to listen and help you talk or laugh through it, they’re worthy of you!”

Remember: Dating a different gender doesn’t mean you’re no longer queer

Just because you might enter a “straight-passing” relationship or hook up, doesn’t mean you’re going to immediately start chugging Bud Lights, listening to tropical house and throwing gender reveal parties. You’re just as queer as you were yesterday.

“I experience biphobia from queer folks as much as I do from straight folks,” says Lara. “Bi folks are so misrepresented (until VERY recently) so that misunderstanding is somewhat understandable.”

“I think a struggle that happens often is that you no longer feel like you’re queer,” adds Zane.

“You’ll also struggle in gay spaces. I’m poly, and when I bring my boyfriend to the gay club, it’s awesome. When I bring my girlfriend, I feel like we’re strangers in this space, and we can’t make out otherwise we’ll appear like that disrespectful straight couple occupying a queer space. So my advice is to remember that you are still queer enough even when dating someone of the opposite gender and are in a ‘straight-passing’ relationship.”

And finally… enjoy yourself

Sex is supposed to be fun. That’s the whole point of it. It’s not a serious endeavour. It’s actually really weird and funny. So remember that even if you’re doing something new or unexpected, try not to overthink it too much.

It’s kind of a privilege that anybody gets to share your body in the first place, so as long as everything’s safe and consenting, put your pleasure first.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

National Coming Out Day

— Some LGBTQ seniors fearing discrimination go back ‘into the closet’

A group of SAGE elders participate in a small group session at SAGE Center Bronx in New York, circa 2017.

National Coming Out Day is Oct. 11.

By Kiara Alfonseca

When Don Bell, a 71-year-old gay man, was searching for a senior living facility, he knew one thing for sure: He didn’t want to go “back into the closet” to find a safe place to live.“I had to face the fact that I was entering the stage of life where I was going to be living alone and responsible for my own life,” Bell told ABC News. “I had to look around at my own home community, and I had to consider where I would be safe and where I would be accepted.”Bell was his mother’s caretaker for many years, but after she died, he feared living alone. He said he wondered what life might be like if he was unable to find a welcoming environment as a gay Black man.Fearing homelessness, Bell fortunately won a lottery for one of the 72 spots in Chicago’s first LGBTQ-inclusive living facility.

But many aren’t so lucky. Some older members of the LGBTQ community are forced to hide their sexuality or gender identity in long-term care or housing facilities because they’re afraid of discrimination.

LGBTQ elders are a vulnerable population — they experience high rates of social isolation, are less likely to have children to care for them and experience higher levels of disability and illness, according to research by the Human Rights Campaign. Discrimination only exacerbates these insecurities.

About 3 out of 4 LGBTQ adults age 45 and older said they’re concerned about having enough support from family and friends as they get older, according to a 2018 study by AARP.

PHOTO: Gay seniors and supporters walk with SAGE at the New York City Pride March, June 25, 2017.
Gay seniors and supporters walk with SAGE at the New York City Pride March, June 25, 2017.

According to Michael Adams, chief executive officer of the LGBTQ senior advocacy group SAGE, elderly LGBTQ people often fear they’ll be refused care, abused or neglected in senior living communities.”Re-closeting,” Adams explained, “looks like: People taking the pictures of their loved ones and their partners down off their walls because they’re afraid a homecare attendant will see the pictures and will mistreat them as a result of it.”

AARP found that respondents living in “unfriendly” communities were seven times more likely to report experiences of housing discrimination due to their sexual or gender identity.

“It looks like making believe that they’re straight when they’re not,” Adams added. “It looks like making believe that they don’t have same-sex partners, hiding their LGBTQ magazines … it means erasing a whole fundamental part of their lives in order to protect themselves.”

There aren’t consistent or explicit anti-discrimination protections for all LGBTQ people at a federal level. SAGE data shows that about half of all LGBTQ older adults live in states where it’s not illegal to deny access to housing or public accommodations based on someone’s sexuality or gender expression.

Only 18% of long-term care communities have policies in place that protect LGBTQ residents, SAGE’s research shows.

PHOTO: Pam DeMoucell, right, dances with her spouse, Jane Beltramini, both of Pembroke, Mass., during an LGBT senior luncheon in Boston on June 20, 2016.
Pam DeMoucell, right, dances with her spouse, Jane Beltramini, both of Pembroke, Mass., during an LGBT senior luncheon in Boston on June 20, 2016.

Bell can recall the many forms of anti-LGBTQ discrimination he’s experienced throughout his life. He’s part of what he calls the first “out” generation, which is now aging: “We have lived the entire 50-year arc of the LGBT civil rights movement. Everything from Stonewall onward is not history to us, it’s life experience to us.”

The sharpest memories of discrimination for Bell seem to be the HIV/AIDS crisis that killed hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ people across the U.S. during the 1980s. The epidemic peaked in 2004, killing 1.9 million in one year, according to UNAIDS, a United Nations advocacy agency.

Patients with HIV/AIDs, as well as other LGBTQ people at the time, faced discrimination in health care, employment, housing — and the community was forced to create its own safe spaces.

“Many of the brick-and-mortar institutions that exist in the LGBT community are those that we had to build ourselves because we could not seek shelter or care in other places,” Bell told ABC News.

PHOTO: Lujira Cooper, 73, is an Edie Windsor SAGE Center participant in New York.
Lujira Cooper, 73, is an Edie Windsor SAGE Center participant in New York.

Bell lives in one of few spaces created specifically for LGBTQ elderly people in the country. New York, California and Illinois are among the states where inclusive housing is easier to obtain, and organizations like SAGE are trying to help ensure access to more.

SAGE is working to build housing specifically designed for LGBTQ elders, to change laws and policies that protect elders from discrimination, and offer centers, programs and more to keep elders safe while they live alone.

They work with local legislators and partner on initiatives to address discrimination and safety issues.

However, Adams said, they can’t do the work alone.

“We need people in power — our legislators, our governors — to understand that our elders have given so much to our society,” he said. “They have worked so hard over so many decades, and it is profoundly wrong that because of who they love, and because of who they are, that in the later years of their life, they are left completely vulnerable to discrimination mistreatment. That has to change.”

Lujira Cooper, a 73-year-old lesbian woman, has never been had to hide her sexuality, but she said she understands the pain that being closeted, or re-closeted, can cause.

“It’s a form of isolation, traumatic, and I can see it creating a case of more suicides,” Cooper explained. “You don’t want to have to go through that again just to get a place to live and be safe and cared for and comfortable. And it’s a fight, and unfortunately it’s a fight that’s still going on.”

For National Coming Out Day, Oct. 11, Cooper urges people of all sexualities and gender identities to stand up for LGBTQ seniors — people who’ve played big roles in the gay rights movement’s success.

“Community is really important and finding like-minded people who will fight with and for you is a major task for senior LGBT people,” Cooper said.

Adams agrees: “We had to fight for the right to get old. We’re not willing to accept that we’re going to be treated like pariahs and made invisible in our old age. We won’t accept that.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Crushes & First (Same-Sex) Kisses

— Coming Out In My 30s Made Me Feel Like A Teen Again

By Alena Papayanis

A few years ago, my dentist tried to convince me to get Invisalign, along with a little bit of hardware as part of the full treatment. Braces? At 38? This was the final straw.

At this point, I had recently come out from a straight marriage and was dating women for the first time. In many ways, it was like being a teenager all over again: first (same-sex) kiss, first sexual experience, a desire to belong, feeling out of control at times, and a lot of angst and journaling. The thought of essentially getting braces suddenly made my experience of midlife adolescence far too literal. I recoiled at the thought of coming any closer to an actual teenaged-reality; I was having enough trouble as it was.

Although norms around sexuality and orientation have opened up dramatically in recent years, many women questioning or exploring their sexuality later in life find themselves in this awkward liminal space: an emotional coming-of-age without the support and understanding that comes with real adolescence.

I’m not sure that anyone would willingly revisit their awkward teenage years, but I’d like to make a case for adolescence at any age.

For me, it was like living a secret life: university professor and mother by day, baby queer on Tinder at night, having to curate my dating profile with the underlying fear of my own students seeing me on it. On my nights without my five-year-old daughter, I’d be out with my queer friends at the bar, drinking more and staying up later than most of my straight peers who were already in their deep sleep stage, and would not be hungover in the morning. On my nights with my daughter, I would physically be singing her to sleep while mentally daydreaming about my current crush.

My friends were confused by my sudden heartbreak and dating ups and downs — I’m a highly educated and intelligent woman, yet I was being thrown around by intense new experiences and drama I’d never navigated before. At times, I’d feel kind of small telling my “older” straight friends about it, as if my problems were petty compared to their “adult” concerns of mortgages and motherhood; yet, to me they felt so urgent and immediate.

And so did sex — this time around. In school, I remember my best friend hooking up repeatedly with her toxic ex. At the time, I never understood why she just couldn’t just stop having sex with him. It was so easy for me, much to the disappointment of my then-boyfriend. Not only had I not really cared about sex the first time around with men, but at times I tried to avoid it entirely.

As a baby queer, I’ve checked off a solid shortlist of bad dating decisions that love coaches warn you about, including a dramatic off-and-on rollercoaster relationship, and a long-distance relationship with a woman I’d only known for a few months. I’ve allowed myself to be love bombed and subsequently played, and tried to win the hearts of more emotionally unavailable women than I’d like to admit on paper. Sexual attraction sometimes completely suspended my logic. It also left me feeling shamefully inexperienced at times, regardless of how much natural instinct had finally kicked in.

All the firsts felt so huge and all the endings equally dramatic

Having all my inner wounds exposed through a series of less-than-ideal, yet somehow more authentic, queer relationships was hard. But the experience also helped me heal. Adolescence is a time when we take all of the “shoulds” and “should nots” that our family, school, and society have taught us, and test them.

As a blossoming people-pleaser, I mostly abided by them, internalising all the rules I was given. I wasn’t aware or courageous enough to discover and be my own self — the obstacles felt too great at the time. Maybe my midlife adolescence has been an attempt to capture this lost, queer version of my past, the closest I’ll ever get to a “do-over” and to getting a glimpse of an alternate version of my life.

Today, I’ve got a solid network of queers around me. I can share my dating stories and identity journey with them, but I’m still sort of the floater I was in high school — the one who seemingly gets along with the different cliques but is only truly close to a few people. Being older and a mother make me too odd-shaped to fit perfectly into queer groups that are largely younger and child-free. Still, I can now celebrate my ability to be comfortably alone after spending the majority of my life never really knowing myself; it’s nice to finally feel like home.

I can now celebrate my ability to be comfortably alone after spending the majority of my life never really knowing myself; it’s nice to finally feel like home.

I’m not sure that anyone would willingly revisit their awkward teenage years, but I’d like to make a case for adolescence at any age. Transitionary times like this naturally lend themselves to change and metamorphosis. They are opportunities to no longer hold yourself to the past and to let your former self suddenly be unrecognisable, to others and maybe most importantly, to yourself.

As British philosopher and writer Alan Watts famously said, “You’re under no obligation to be the same person you were five minutes ago.” Looking back now, at age 41, it’s hard to believe that I was any of the previous versions of myself, and I feel ready to let go of this past full of strangers.

I see the humour in the messiness and awkwardness of my midlife adolescence, but I also see its power, because it’s when I too became someone new — just with the same old imperfect teeth.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Guidance and suggestions for caregivers of LGBTQIA+ youth

Despite conversations around gender and sexuality becoming more common and society’s attitudes becoming more accepting, it is still undeniable that LGBTQIA+ youth face a unique set of challenges growing up.

by Cara Williams

As a caregiver, it is important to create a safe, supportive, and understanding environment to allow LGBTQIA+ youth to explore their identity. Caregivers can do so by becoming informed, being respectful, aware of potential risks, and using helpful resources.

This article provides information for caregivers and discusses ways in which they can support the well-being of LGBTQIA+ youth.

Create a supportive environment 

It is important that caregivers create a supportive environment for LGBTQIA+ youth. A 2021 survey conducted by The Trevor Project shows that:

  • LGBTQ youth who report having high levels of support from friends, family or a special person have a lower rate of attempted suicide than those with less support.
  • LGBTQ youth with access to spaces that affirm their gender and sexuality report less attempted suicides.
  • Transgender or nonbinary youth who have their pronouns respected by the people they live with have half the attempted suicide rate compared to those with pronouns not respected by others in the household.

However, the study also shows that only a third of LGBTQ youth report that their homes are an LGBTQ affirming environment.

PFLAG and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source list several ways caregivers can create a supportive environment for LGBTQIA+ youth, such as:

  • Provide opportunities for open communication. By opening up a dialogue, caregivers can create a safe space for their child to discuss their gender and/or sexual orientation.
  • Provide support. Showing support for an LGBTQIA+ youth’s identity can take many forms, such as complementing their clothing when expressing their gender identity or talking positively about LGBTQIA+ characters on television.
  • Stay involved. Caregivers can demonstrate ongoing support to LGBTQIA+ youth by including them in events such as family gatherings and staying informed about their life, friends, and partners.
  • Express unconditional love. It is often difficult for LGBTQIA+ youth to come out to their caregivers and so it is important that caregivers remind them that they love and accept them throughout their journey.
  • Be aware of potential risks
    LGBTQIA+ youth may experience challenges due to how others react to their gender or sexual orientation. Youth can spend as much, if not more, time at school as they do at home so it is important to be aware of potential challenges LGBTQIA+ youth may face when at school. Stonewall’s School Report found:

    • 45% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pupils experienced bullying for being LGBT at school.
    • 45% of those who experience bullying for being LGBT never tell anyone.
    • 40% of those who experience bullying for being LGBT have skipped school because of it.
    • Over half of LGBT pupils report there not being an adult at school that they can talk to about being LGBT.
    • Only 1 in 5 LGBT pupils have received education on safe sex in same-sex relationships.
    • 74% of white LGBT youth, 79% of LGBT youth of color, and 87% of LGBT youth with a disability report having thoughts of taking their own life.

    The extra challenges that LGBTQIA+ youth face in schooling can make it harder for them to reach their academic goals, as well as affecting their mental and physical health. Considering these extra risks that LGBTQIA+ youth face, caregivers can look out for signs of bullying such as frequent absences from school, a fall in their grades, or participating in risky activities such as drug use.

    Caregivers and parents can help ensure that schools are creating a safe environment for LGBTQIA+ youth by remaining in close contact with teachers, pushing for supportive measures such as the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) and being vocal about any issues that should be changed.

    A 2017 studyTrusted Source shows that LGBT youth are at higher risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and substance misuse. They are also more likely to struggle with mental health such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.

    However, systemic biases may make seeking medical treatment and support more difficult. Surveys from both Stonewall and the Trevor Project found:

    • 48% of LGBTQ youth who wanted to see a professional for their mental health could not receive it.
    • 1 in 8 people have gone through unequal treatment from healthcare staff due to being LGBT.
    • 1 in 5 LGBT people do not disclose their sexual orientation when seeking healthcare.
    • 1 in 7 LGBT people, due to fear of discrimination, have avoided seeking treatment.

    To minimize these challenges, caregivers can attempt:

    • searching for medical practices that prioritize making their services accessible for LGBTQIA+ people
    • being present in medical appointments and speaking out against the use of any noninclusive or harmful language
    • ensuring medical professionals are correctly using the LGBTQIA+ youth’s pronouns
    • when possible, encouraging the use of support from mental health professionals

    Ultimately, it is crucial for caregivers to challenge harmful behavior and language whenever possible, whether that comes from schools, medical professionals, or family members.

    Respect confidentiality

    Coming to terms with identity is a journey that may not be linear. Additional factors such as race, religion, and disability may impact an LGBTQIA+ youth’s decision as to when to come out.
    It is important for caregivers to respect LGBTQIA+ youth’s wishes in regard to the disclosure of their identity. Communication with caregivers is vital for LGBTQIA+ youths’ development, but it is important that caregivers do not force their child to come out, or out them to others before they are ready.

    A caregiver’s journey

    When LGBTQIA+ youth come out, it is a journey for caregivers as well as for the LGBTQIA+ youth themselves. PFLAG list some important factors for caregivers to keep in mind:

    • Caregivers are not alone. 80% of people in the United States personally know someone who is LGB and 1 in 3 know someone who is transgender. There are many organizations that exist to support and connect caregivers of LGBTQIA+ youth.
    • A caregiver’s reaction is valid. There is no one way to react to an LGBTQIA+ youth coming out. Caregivers’ reactions may range from being happy that their child has opened up to them, to denial that their child is LGBTQIA+. It is important that caregivers take time to address their reactions.
    • Self-care is important. Self-care is crucial to being able to provide the best support for loved ones. Caregivers can utilize resources such as PFLAG to find safe spaces to discuss their feelings during their journey with others going through similar experiences.

    List of resources

    Caregivers and LGBTQIA+ youth may also be able to seek help online via several organizations that provide support and advice. These may include:

    Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Do You Think You’re Exclusively Straight?

Influencing People’s Perceptions of Their Sexual Orientation

By University of Sydney

Scientific research has shown that sexuality exists on a spectrum. But how certain are people about where they fit on it? A new University of Sydney study suggests that people’s reported sexual orientation can change after reading about the nature of sexual orientation.

Published in peer-reviewed journal, Nature’s Scientific Reports, the study found that a significant number of heterosexual people report being less exclusive in their sexual orientation as well as more willing to have same-sex experiences after reading one of two 1-page informational articles.

Lead author, Dr. James Morandini, said: “Did we change people’s sexual orientation via our interventions? Surely not. I think our study may have changed how people interpreted their underlying sexual feelings. This means two people with identical sexual orientations could describe their sexual orientation quite differently, depending on whether they have been exposed to fluid or continuous ways of understanding sexuality.”

One informational article read by participants suggested that scientific research has found that there are many gradations of sexual attraction towards men and women, and people can fall anywhere along the continuum, from exclusive attraction to men to exclusive attraction to women. Another informational article showed that sexual orientation can change over time, and thus can be fluid.

All participants self-identified as ‘straight’ before the study began. Compared to a control group, after reading the first article, participants were 28 percent more likely to identify as non-exclusively heterosexual, and 19 percent indicated they would be more likely to be willing to engage in same-sex sexual activities. Overall, the rate of ‘non-exclusive heterosexuality’ more than quadrupled after this activity. Similar, albeit weaker, effects were found when people read that sexual orientation is better characterized as fluid rather than stable throughout life.

The study‘s senior author, Associate Professor Ilan Dar-Nimrod from the School of Psychology, said: “This is not that surprising given that ‘non-exclusive heterosexuals’ (as opposed to bisexual, gay or lesbian individuals), although being the biggest same-sex attracted group, are not well captured in our society’s representations and even vernacular.”

He added: “Given the social value that our society attach to these labels, however, such a shift may have far-reaching implications. It also suggests that certain level of same-sex sexual attraction may be much more common than previously estimated.”

Methodology

A national Australian sample of 460 individuals (232 women, 228 men) who identified as ‘straight’ prior the study took part in an online panel study.

They were instructed to read an article that suggested that scientific research found one of the following:

  • There are many gradations of sexual attraction towards men and women and people can fall anywhere along the continuum from exclusive attraction to men to exclusive attraction to women.
  • Sexual orientation exists in three discrete, non-overlapping categories: gay, bisexual, and straight.
  • Sexual orientation can change throughout one’s lifetime.
  • Sexual orientation is stable once a person identifies which gender they are attracted to.
  • Control (no discussion of sexual orientation but instead discussing global warming). 

They were then asked to rate their sexual orientation on a 9-point scale from exclusively heterosexual (1) to exclusively homosexual (9) and provide information on how certain they are about their sexual orientation and how willing they are to engage in same-sex sexual encounters.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Your Sexuality Belongs to You and You Alone

— No One Can Decide for You

by Tess Catlett

I’m not gonna lie to y’all. I’ve written a lot over the years, but, for the most part, I’ve avoided talking about The Big Stuff.

By that, I mean how I grew up, what my relationship with my family was (is?) like, how I came to *be*, and what the hell I’m doing with my life at present.

(No, surface-level sh*tposts on Twitter don’t count. Thank you, TweetDelete for saving my future self from my past and present self’s angst. Best $15 I ever spent.)

There are a lot of reasons for this. But, for me, what it all boils down to is the fear of what my mother would do.

But you know what? It doesn’t matter anymore.

I haven’t lived at home in over a decade. The worst thing that could happen to me — that I would be unable to speak to or be there for my younger sister — is no longer a credible outcome, at least not as the result of parental involvement.

Planting the seeds of sexual shame

The thing is, I’m not straight. I don’t remember a lot about my childhood, but I know that I never really “came out.” Not to myself, not to my friends, certainly not to my family — though I suppose this letter is likely doing just that.

It was just a thing that I noticed about myself and that was that. I liked boys, I guess. But I also liked girls, people who didn’t feel like those words described themselves, and people who never really thought about their gender at all.

My developing brain didn’t see why this was an issue, just that it was something that might drive my mother to make good on her threats to send me to a program for “troubled teens.”

That’s because, somewhere along the way, many years before I realized this about myself, my mother had already decided that I was gay.

I honestly don’t even remember what the first thing that set her off was. For all I know, it could’ve been that, when I was 8, I wanted her to cut my thick, dark brown, butt-length hair into something more reasonable for Mississippi’s scorching summer heat.

After all, your sexuality is determined by the style of your hair, and anything above the shoulders means you’re a lesbian, right?

Whatever the case, once she got it into her head that I might be something other than a cisgender God-fearing Christian woman who would one day marry a straight, cisgender man and do whatever it is straight Christian couples do, she never let it go.

Routine outbursts reminding me that I was going to Hell were the norm. Sleepovers with friends that were girls were forbidden, and, later, the possibility of her snagging my prepaid phone to go through my text messages loomed overhead like a never-ending dark cloud.

I even stopped journaling, because I knew that, no matter where I hid it, she would read it, “find something,” and send me outside to pick out a switch from the tree.

Who you are vs. who others want you to be

There wasn’t any room for me to be myself — or explore whatever version of me I was trying to parse through at the time.

And, because there wasn’t any space for me, there wasn’t any space for anyone who I cared about to fully exist in my orbit.

If I wanted to hang out with certain friends, I had to lie about who they were, how I knew them, and anything else that might reveal that their identity and personality fell outside the invisible spectrum of “acceptability” that my mother clung to.

I knew I could never bring some friends to my house, or around my family, because of how they would be treated.

Even though I knew I didn’t agree with what my mother thought, that her idea of what was right and what was wrong wasn’t rooted in good faith, hearing it day in and day out took a toll.

The slightest overstep — be it as simple as asking to check out the “Pretty Little Liars” series at the library — and I would be exiled to my grandmother’s computer room to watch online bible studies for hours on end.

The message? What I liked was immoral, the people I wanted to hang out with were unholy, and I needed to be better or else I’d risk eternal damnation.

Sexual repression and self-destruction

Trying and failing to conform to what was expected of me erupted in a number of ways. The balancing act of Christian guilt and perpetual self-loathing landed me in a locked bathroom with a single-edge razor blade and left a range of barcodes permanently etched into my skin.

As the years cycled through, razors turned into switchblades, switchblades turned into an eating disorder, and my troubles with food turned into troubles with substance use — all while throwing myself into schoolwork and extracurricular activities.

Disassociation was the name of the game, and whatever could keep me there the longest was a plus in my book.

All I wanted was to get out, but I didn’t think I could make it past 18. Between what I dealt with at home, and what I inflicted on myself outside, it was a toss up of which would kill me first.

I won’t justify my mother’s behavior or her beliefs, but I can’t pretend that she didn’t have her reasons. Trauma begets trauma, and generational trauma is the gift that keeps on giving.

Yet I’m still here. I moved out of state after high school and somehow managed to scam my way into an undergraduate degree that I’ll never pay off.

I made it to the West Coast, where I’m getting by in a city that I can’t afford to breathe in. I found a home in my friends and learned how to lean on them.

And I’m finally ready to stop picking and choosing which fundamental parts of myself I share online and IRL.

Self-advocacy as the key to sexual pleasure

That’s what this year’s Sexual Health Awareness Month is all about: standing in your truth and taking ownership of your identity.

Longtime Healthline writer Gabrielle Kassel kicks things off with a deep dive into “second queer adolescence,” which is the idea that queer people live their “teenage years” twice.

  • Check back here on September 7 to learn more about what a second queer adolescence can look like, the potential highs and lows, and how to embrace your personal timeline — no matter your age or the timelines of those around you.
  • Want to start reading now? Check out Gabrielle’s take on what it means to be “queer enough” to claim your identity.

On September 13, we welcome retired professional dominatrix Reb Holmberg to the site to talk about how BDSM can make pleasure accessible to people of differing ages, abilities, body shapes, and social skills.

  • Over a 30-year career, they created thousands of experiences that have enabled clients, friends, and lovers to feel liberated from old age, immobility, body size, and gender dysphoria. And luckily for us, they’re going to explain how we can find the same joy.
  • Want to start reading now? Sarah Aswell wrote a beginner’s guide to kinky sex, so you can brush up on the basics.

Catasha Harris, a Black sexual empowerment coach, finishes out the month with her September 20 debut.

  • Here, she explains in-depth why Black women have never really been given the opportunity to sexually explore — and why this sexual awakening is so important at this specific moment in time.
  • Want to start reading now? Check out this article, an impassioned plea from Gloria Oladipo to stop begging Black women to save you from the consequence of your own actions.

Something else on your mind? Our sex and relationships hub covers everything from cuffing during a pandemic and safer chest binding to having an orgasm after menopause, tips for being a better lover, and more.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Why has same-sex sexual behaviour persisted during evolution?

By

Same-sex sexual behaviour may seem to present a Darwinian paradox. It provides no obvious reproductive or survival benefit, and yet same-sex sexual behaviour is fairly common — around 2-10% of individuals in diverse human societies — and is clearly influenced by genes.

These observations raise the question: why have genes associated with same-sex sexual behaviour been maintained over evolutionary time? Given that evolution depends on genes being passed down through the generations via reproduction, how and why were these genes passed down too?

In a new paper published in Nature Human Behaviour, my colleagues and I tested one possible explanation: that the genes associated with same-sex sexual behaviour have evolutionarily advantageous effects in people who don’t engage in same-sex sexual behaviour.

Specifically, we tested whether those genes are also associated with having more opposite-sex partners, which might therefore confer an evolutionary advantage.

To investigate this, we used genetic data from more than 350,000 people who had participated in the UK Biobank, a huge database of genetic and health information.

These participants reported whether they had ever had a same-sex partner, and also how many opposite-sex partners they had had in their lifetime.

We analysed the association of millions of individual genetic variants with each of these self-reported variables. For both variables, there were not only one or a few associated genetic variants, but very many, spread throughout the genome. Each had only a tiny effect, but in aggregate, their effects were substantial.

We then showed that the aggregate genetic effects associated with ever having had a same sex partner were also associated — among people who had never had a same-sex partner — with having had more opposite-sex partners.

This result supported our main hypothesis.

Further exploration

We then tried replicating and extending our findings.

First, we successfully replicated the main finding in an independent sample.

Second, we tested whether our results still held true if we used different definitions of same-sex sexual behaviour.

For example, did it still hold true if we tightened the definition of same-sex sexual behaviour to cover only those individuals with predominantly or exclusively same-sex partners (rather than including anyone who has ever had one)?

Our results remained largely consistent, although statistical confidence was lower due to the smaller sub-samples used.

Third, we tested whether physical attractiveness, risk-taking propensity, and openness to experience might help to account for the main result.

In other words, could genes associated with these variables be associated with both same-sex sexual behaviour and with opposite-sex partners in heterosexuals?

In each case, we found evidence supporting a significant role for these variables, but most of the main result remained unexplained.

So we still don’t have a solid theory on exactly how these genes confer an evolutionary advantage. But it might be a complex mix of factors that generally make someone “more attractive” in broad terms.

Simulating evolution

To investigate how the hypothesised evolutionary process might unfold, we also constructed a digital simulation of a population of reproducing individuals over many generations. These simulated individuals had small “genomes” that affected their predispositions for having same-sex partners and opposite-sex reproductive partners.

These simulations showed that, in principle, the kind of effect suggested by our main result can indeed maintain same-sex sexual behaviour in the population, even when the trait itself is evolutionarily disadvantageous.

Two men hold hands while walking on grass
The study involved Western participants – so the next step will be to look at other populations.

Crucially, our simulations also showed that if there were no countervailing benefit to genes associated with same-sex sexual behaviour, the behaviour would likely disappear from the population.

These findings give us intriguing clues about the evolutionary maintenance of same-sex sexual behaviour, but there are important caveats too.

An important limitation is that our results are based on modern, Western samples of white participants – we cannot know to what extent our findings apply to other ethnicities or cultures in different places and times. Future studies using more diverse samples may help clarify this.

On a final note, I am aware some people believe it is inappropriate to study sensitive topics such as the genetics and evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour. My perspective is that the science of human behaviour aims to shine a light on the mysteries of human nature and that this involves understanding the factors that shape our commonalities and our differences.

Were we to avoid studying sexual preference or other such topics due to political sensitivities, we would be leaving these important aspects of normal human diversity in the dark.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!