Zander Moricz, Florida class president of Pine View, talked about his ‘curly hair’ in a heartfelt speech and used it as an analogy for his sexuality. Zander had to adhere to restrictons because of Florida’s controversial ‘Don’t Say Gay’ laws in schools.
The curly hair metaphor that everyone loved
A college student banned from using the word ‘gay‘ at his graduation speech used a clever metaphor to speak about his sexual orientation.
Zander Moricz, Florida class president of Pine View, talked about his ‘curly hair’ in a heartfelt speech and used it as an analogy for his sexuality.
Zander had to adhere to restrictions because of Florida’s controversial ‘Don’t Say Gay’ laws in schools.
So as the high school graduate began his speech, he replaced gay with ‘curly hai’. By doing so, he left audiences in awe and also drew worldwide attention to his activism for the LGBTQIA+ community.
“I must discuss a very public part of my identity. This characteristic has probably become the first thing you think of me as a human being. As you know, I have curly hair,” said Zander, while speaking at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall
The clip showing his speech has now collected over 8.4 million views on Twitter.
florida high school class president zander moricz was told by his school that they would cut his microphone if he said “gay” in his grad speech, so he replaced gay with “having curly hair.” i am in awe pic.twitter.com/OqLbar5bwq
The teenager even removed his mortarboard cap and unveiled his curly hair to the audience.
“I used to hate my curls. I spent mornings and nights embarrassed of them, trying to desperately straighten this part of who I am. But the daily damage of trying to fix myself became too much to endure,” he said.
He further added: “So while having curly hair in Florida is difficult, due to the humidity, I decided to be proud of who I was and started coming to school as my authentic self.”
Staying on the metaphor, Zander went on to say the growth of his ‘hair’ was a messy process but he came out well due to the support of his friends and teachers.
He ended his speech by saying it was important for him to speak up about his curly hair and other curly-haired students who are adjusting to ‘Florida’s humidity’.
The moving speech comes a few months after the controversial ‘Do Say Gay’ bill was signed and passed by the state. The bill prevents the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity from pre-school to third grade.
NPR’s Sacha Pfeiffer talks with Eliot Schrefer, author of Queer Ducks (And Other Animals): The Natural World of Animal Sexuality. It’s about how “natural sex” may not be as binary as some think.
SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:
At its worst, a nonfiction science book about animal sexuality could read like a dry biology textbook. But that’s not the kind of book Eliot Schrefer wrote. His book, called “Queer Ducks (And Other Animals): The Natural World Of Animal Sexuality,” is designed to be teenager-friendly, for one thing. It’s a young adult book filled with comics and humor and accessible science, and it’s filled with research on the diversity of sexual behavior in the animal world. Eliot Schrefer is with us to explain more. Welcome, Eliot.
ELIOT SCHREFER: Hi. I’m really happy to be here.
PFEIFFER: We’re glad to have you. I really liked the way you structured your book. It’s basically an animal per chapter, in a way. But you also have these wonderful illustrations. You have interviews with scientists. Tell us a little bit about how you decided to make it accessible because, again, you’re aiming for adolescents, as I understand it, in a nonfiction way, and they might be inclined to think nonfiction equals boring, dry textbook.
SCHREFER: Right. I sort of imagine, like, we’re kind of sitting in the science classroom, passing notes back and forth, and it even comes down to the doodles. There’s an artist, Jules Zuckerberg, who did a one-page comic for each of the animal species that we discuss. So it’s – the premise is that it’s an animal GSA.
PFEIFFER: A gender sexuality alliance meeting.
SCHREFER: That’s right. And so they’re each taking a turn introducing themselves. And so the bonobo takes a turn introducing how her family works, and then the doodlebug and the dolphin and so on.
PFEIFFER: Yeah, they’re really great. They make the book really accessible. As we said, every chapter basically tackles an animal and something about the sexuality of that animal. Do you have a favorite or one of your favorites that you could tell us about?
SCHREFER: Sure. Well, the hard part starting to write this book was figuring out which animals to focus on. The bonobos are famously promiscuous, and the majority of their sexual activity is between females. So I knew they had to be in there, is an early chapter.
PFEIFFER: What’s funny – well, what’s interesting about these animals are they – as you said, they’re very promiscuous. I mean, there’s almost this orgy-like way about how they behave sometimes.
SCHREFER: Yes, and what was so interesting in the early studies about bonobos – they’re really fairly new to science. We used to call them pygmy chimpanzees and just thought they were small chimps and that was it. And it wasn’t until the ’90s and the 2000s that we started really studying them. And sex, in particular same-sex sexual activity in bonobos, is a way to avoid conflict and to smooth over feelings after a conflict.
There was a really fascinating study where they gave honey, which is a really desirable food source, to a group of bonobos and to a group of chimpanzees and saw how they reacted differently. And chimpanzees, the strongest males grabbed the food source and handed it out to their allies. And then in the bonobos, they all circled the honey, and none of them touched it. And they all got very, very anxious about how this food was going to be split up. And then rather than starting eating, they started an orgy. They just all started having sex. And this is between males and males, males and females and females and females. And then once they were blissed out and calm, that’s when they started to eat this food. And chimps and bonobos are tied as our closest relative, so it’s a great metaphor for the two ways that we can also look at human nature.
PFEIFFER: There’s also a chapter that I found interesting about bulls. And a lot of bulls are used for breeding. They’re used to inseminate females. And sometimes, the bulls have to kind of get in the mood. The handlers help them get in the mood. And what’s interesting is they often bring in other males to do that, and it’s effective. And I thought that was very interesting. Tell us why you chose that example.
SCHREFER: Bovids are – have one of the largest percentages of same-sex sexual behavior within their populations. And it’s long been the ace card in the hand of cattle breeders to bring out a steer to get a bull excited in order to perform sexually. And in fact, there was one of the foremost sheep researchers, Valerius Geist, who studied bighorn sheep in the 1960s – he was in the wild observing these bighorns and saw that they basically live in entirely homosexual society until the age of 6 or 7. The males are off by themselves having frequent intercourse. And he didn’t publish on it. He wrote about this in his memoir years later because he couldn’t tolerate the idea that these – what he – quote, “magnificent beasts were queers.” And so he resisted publishing on that.
PFEIFFER: We mention that the book includes interviews you’ve done with scientists, these little question and answer exchanges. I really like those. They not only added to the science of the book, but it was interesting that these types of professionals exist. Could you tell us about one that you think is most noteworthy?
SCHREFER: Sure. I wanted to expand kids’ impression of who gets to do science, with gets in quotes there – that it’s not just old guys in white coats, right? There’s an upswell of young scientists who are doing some wonderful work around queer behavior and queer identities in animals.
So one person I spoke to was an ecologist who has transitioned genders, has – is still actively figuring out their place within the broader world and looked forward so much to the days when they could be just with their binoculars in the fields, mud up to their ankles, just staring at moose because at that moment, all these – the complicated navigation of all these identities just dropped away, and they were just part of nature. Like, they didn’t have to explain themselves to the animals, and the animals had no concept of judging or shaming anyone for the choices that they were making around their gender identity. And I found that so moving that there is some – there’s a peace to be found and a simplicity and an acceptance, a radical acceptance within nature.
PFEIFFER: Eliot, you’ve written in your book that you are well aware – these are your words – well aware that this book is bound to be controversial. But on the other hand, you also seem to be trying to assure young people out there that this is not controversial at all. It’s actually quite common in the animal world. Is that part of the message you’re trying to send?
SCHREFER: Yeah. I think there’s – you know, some people will say, well, there’s all sorts of things that animals do that humans oughtn’t to be doing – right? – that we shouldn’t cannibalize our partners after we have sex with them, that we shouldn’t be living on webs out in the wild, and that we can’t just cherry-pick which animal examples we choose to use. But that’s really getting the argument of the book backwards. I’m not trying to argue for human behaviors from certain – the ways that animals can behave. Instead, I’m trying to say that we can no longer argue that humans are alone in their queerness or in their LGBTQ identities – that instead, we are part of a millions of year tradition within the animal world of a varieties of approaches to sex and a ton of advantages that come around from it.
PFEIFFER: Eliot, you’ve written and you’ve said that you wished you had known this when you were younger. If you had known it, how do you think it would have changed how you felt about yourself?
SCHREFER: I think there’s a loneliness to human queerness, that there is this idea that it is something that happened recently to this species and that we are alone in it, and that queer people can find each other and find community with each other, and that that is the goal that they can – they should hope for when we are heavily integrated into the natural world. And that is the part of the message that I think is lost, and that LGBTQ behaviors and identities are absolutely natural.
PFEIFFER: That’s Eliot Schrefer. His new book is “Queer Ducks (And Other Animals).” Eliot, thank you.
When figuring out something as complex as sexuality, it might seem like there are more labels than there are in your local supermarket. You may also feel that it’s difficult to find just one that 100 percent fits you, which is totally fine, by the way.
Two of the identities that people might need more clarity on are “omnisexual” and “pansexual.”
At first glance, they may seem the same. You can define pansexuality as having a romantic, emotional, or sexual attraction to people, regardless of their genders. But omnisexuality can involve having a romantic, emotional, or sexual attraction to people of all genders. The distinction is slight, but it’s there.
Don’t worry if you didn’t spot it right away, though. We’ll explain their similarities, differences, and what they both mean in the context of relationships.
OK, before we delve into the specifics of pansexuality and omnisexuality, we need to discuss the concept of gender blindness. Try not to skip: This is what’s going to help you work out the differences!
You might’ve heard the term “gender blindness” used in a negative sense. Like “color blind” in terms of race, some people may use it as a refusal to acknowledge that some groups experience oppression or privilege because of their genders.
Some pansexuals call themselves “gender blind” in a neutral way, meaning that a person’s sex or gender doesn’t factor into their attraction for them. They can be attracted to someone whether they’re male, female, trans, intersex, nonbinary, etc. So, they use “gender blind” in the nonexclusionary sense, in that gender simply isn’t an issue.
However, other pansexuals might be uncomfortable with the term, feeling that it may invalidate someone’s identity, especially trans people who may have gone through a lot of hard work to be recognized as their genders. These pansexuals may prefer to say that they have no gender preference.
Whether you use the term “gender blindness” or not, and it’s good to be aware that some people aren’t comfy with it, you get the gist — it’s about not limiting your attractions by gender.
The prefix, “pan” means all, every, whole, and all-inclusive. The “pan” in pansexual means you’re attracted to someone without consideration for their gender, aka, you’re gender blind or have no gender preference. This doesn’t mean you’re invalidating someone’s gender in any way — but it just isn’t a factor in your level of attraction to them.
“Pansexual” is a relatively young term that didn’t really get used a whole lot until the mid-2010s, when it was put under the bisexual umbrella. But now, pansexuals proudly walk on their own, represented by a pink, yellow, and blue flag, which stands for attraction to all identities.
Sometimes, people can easily misinterpret pansexuality, which can create negative stereotypes and discourage people from owning their sexualities. Some mistakenly believe that the “all” part of the distinction means that pansexuals are up for getting down with anyone, all the time — and that simply isn’t true.
Others see pansexuality as an open invitation for sexual activity, and that it lessens any need for consent — nope, nope, a thousand times nope. Just like all forms of sexuality, pansexuality is a specific form of openness that the individual wholly owns and manages, not anyone else.
Want to show your pansexual pride? May 24 is Pansexual Visibility Day, with National Pansexual Pride Day on December 8.
The prefix “omni” means all, everywhere, or all-encompassing. Similar to “pansexual,” “omnisexual” means you can have an attraction to all genders — except, in this case, you do consider sex and gender to a certain extent, aka, you’re not gender blind.
If you’re omnisexual, you might have a slight gender preference when it comes to attraction, but not a specific gender requirement. So, the gender of the person you’re attracted to matters, but it’s not a determining factor.
“Omnisexual” is another fairly new term, which a lot of people might not be super familiar with, and that can lead to its own problems. For instance, both pansexuals and omnisexuals often might have to put up with the perception of being hypersexual and all the issues that come with that, such as erasure among others.
Because “omnisexual” isn’t yet a universally familiar term, people who do identify as such are often labelled as the more-familiar “bisexual” or “pansexual” instead, which can be hurtful.
But as time goes on, more and more people have access to the education to help them develop awareness of what the term means. There’s also an omnisexual flag, which has stripes of pink, blue-purple, and black. People recognize Omnisexual Awareness Day on March 21, and Omnisexual and Omniromantic Pride and Visibility Day is on June 6.
If you’re looking to find which identity is most true for yourself between omnisexual and pansexual, the main similarity can be straightforward: Both groups can be attracted to anyone of any gender, whether it’s in a romantic, emotional, or sexual way.
The key difference is the consideration of gender — pansexuals don’t consider it, omnisexuals do.
If it’s still a little tricky to distinguish in your head, imagine one person saying, “I love hot drinks!”, and another person saying, “I love tea, and coffee, and hot chocolate, and…” It’s not a perfect comparison, but it might help you grasp the difference a little more clearly.
And remember, everyone’s understanding of their own sexuality is just that: their own. You can define yourself however you choose, or not at all. Having a clear understanding of your feelings based on your experiences is what matters.
So, you might have a better inkling now of whether pansexuality or omnisexuality fits you better — that’s awesome! If you’re already in a relationship, or planning to be in one sometime, it’s also a good moment to think about how you’re going to be clear with them going forward.
The first thing to remember is that you don’t have to tell anyone that you’re pansexual or omnisexual if you don’t want to — you don’t owe that to anyone. But if your partner(s) is completely in the dark, or isn’t super knowledgeable about different sexualities, it can cause some issues.
Not communicating your sexual identity or preferences may cause you to become tense or unsure around your partner, which may cause them to become uncomfortable as a result. And that’s not a good foundation for any relationship.
If you do want to tell them about your sexuality, reassure them that you’re being open and honest with them because you want a stronger relationship. Explain what pansexuality or omnisexuality is, and work to clarify any misconceptions or defuse any stereotypes.
There’s no guarantee that your partner(s) will be receptive, or respond in a way that you like, but that’s on them. Being authentic and honest with yourself and with the person you care about is the priority. Care promotes authenticity, and authenticity should encourage better care.
If you don’t identify as either omnisexual or pansexual, it’s always a good thing to know what supportive language you can use. And if you’re an ally, advocate, or someone whose loved one just came out, it’s even more important!
First thing to remember is to avoid presuming anything about anyone. If someone tells you that they’re omnisexual, don’t reply with “but isn’t that just bisexual/pansexual?”. And the same goes for pansexuals — sexual identities are deeply personal, and it’s for each individual to decide which fits them best.
It’s important to avoid making jokes about being hypersexual. And for the love of pizza, almost every pansexual heard the “does this mean you’re attracted to frying pans?” joke a million times already.
Remember that being attracted to all genders doesn’t necessarily mean that a person wants to be in polyamorous relationships. Some might be in them, others might not be, same as anyone else.
As with anyone, it’s important to know pronouns, especially with pansexuals — some people will be “he/him” or “she/her,” but with gender being less of a concern, others may choose to be “they,” “ze,” or “xe.” It’s much better to ask than to keep getting it wrong.
Above all, simply respect and accept. If someone trusts you enough to share their sexual identity with you, that’s a big deal.
Although it can initially be tricky to work out the difference between pansexuality and omnisexuality, they’re both completely individual and valid forms of sexual identity, with their own acknowledgments. Gone are the days when both were simply thrown under the label “bisexual“.
What it comes down to is that omnisexuals tend to notice a potential partner’s gender more than pansexuals do. Other than that, pansexuality and omnisexuality share a love and attraction that isn’t limited by gender. Both can be truly inclusive.
Be true to yourself, and support others in their own journeys — after all, isn’t that what love is all about?
— The agony and the ecstasy of an open relationship
And then there were three: ‘If we can both let each other go for an evening every now and then, the reunion feels so much sweeter.’
When Tom Rasmussen and their partner of seven years decided to have an open relationship, they knew it would be exciting and revitalising – but the danger of losing what they had was only too real
By Tom Rasmussen
My mother will kill me for writing this article. She doesn’t get why my partner and I would want to have sex with other people; why, God why, would we want to question a structure as sacred and, let’s face it, successful as monogamy? As she said, when I first mentioned I’d been on a date with someone who wasn’t my long-term partner, “Well, what if he finds someone better than you?” Brutal. Mothers really know how to find your deepest insecurity before wringing it – and you – out like a dishcloth.
She wasn’t wrong, though. What if he does find someone better than me? That was, admittedly, the first question I had when my partner and I decided to sleep with other people a year ago. Not only that, we decided it would be fine if we went on dates with other people, too: one, two, 10 – as long as we kept, as every pop psychologist whose bestseller I’ve never read will tell you, communication streams open.
The first date with someone else was mine. It was with an incredibly hot guy who I’d met at a fashion party, because I’m glamorous like that. He flirted so hard it was essentially impossible to say no. My partner and I discussed it: “Let’s just see what happens.”
Naturally I was nervous. The guy was hot. I was sweaty. It was the first date I’d been on in way over half a decade. What on earth do you talk about? I messaged a friend who is a very chic dater: “Just ask him his most problematic opinion… Honestly, it’s the best opener.” I wore black, because I always wear black, and I unbuttoned my shirt one lower than usual. I kissed my partner and my dog, Celine Dion, goodbye. And off I went.
The date was fun, the sex was wild – not better or worse, but invigorating in its difference. Kissing was, bizarrely, harder than anything else because a kiss with a stranger these days feels more intimate, and until then that intimacy had been reserved only for my partner.
When I arrived home that night after sleeping with the first person who wasn’t my boyfriend in seven years, I felt, simply, glad to climb into bed next to him. But also, perhaps, like I was beginning to undo three decades of conditioning towards monogamy. A monogamy which, until then, I’d held on to so tightly it was as likely to suffocate me, or my partner, as the worrisome potential of finding someone better.
See, the thing about our monogamous relationship was that the desire we had for others never went away. It was simply annexed in our brain, right there next to Catholicism and the bad exes. That’s not to say it was repressed. I don’t know a single person in a monogamous relationship who doesn’t flirt, have crushes, perhaps overstep the mark in someone’s DMs. A lot of people cheat, too. It’s been this way for aeons and it will be this way for aeons to come (or until the next pesky mass extinction event hits). And annexing this desire is perfectly fine, but when you simply ask the question, “But why?”, finding a solid answer becomes difficult.
The day after I’d consummated our open relationship, we packed a bag and drove to the countryside for a friend’s baby’s christening. The atmosphere in the car as we drove out of London was one of deep, icy tension. We could not seem to find the right song to narrate the moment, for the whole 90-minute trip, until I burst and said: “OK, we fucked!”
We decided there and then, on the A419 on the way to celebrate the choices of some dear friends who had done what they were supposed to do and moved to the countryside to raise their perfect child, that this open thing was a terrible idea.
My partner is the love of my life. Something – perhaps the only thing, except that blondes really do have more fun – I feel sure of. A climate crisis brings daily anxiety, the newspapers are littered with transphobia, the government goes beyond incompetence to arrive somewhere between casual cruelty and calculated fascism. And on days where it feels as if there is very little to live for, just looking at him still reminds me that there is something so good in the world. Something with meaning.
See I am, and always have been, a sucker for love, romance and utter dedication – a paradox with my ever-intensifying queer politic. For a long time, it was me who had a desperate stake in our monogamy. I am the kind of person who people describe as “so attractive” but, because of my hairy belly and flagrant femininity, it’s often followed by: “I’m always attracted to people over bodies.” Well, good for you. But for me, attraction has always found me in spite of my body, not because of it. And plainly put, my boyfriend has both: charm, vigour – and abs.
‘Like every gay from a small town, I believed I was Carrie Bradshaw’: Tom Rasmussen.
Now I don’t want to be shallow: I wouldn’t want to say that the only reason I clung tightly to monogamy was because I’m a six and he’s a nine. It’s also a Catholic upbringing, every bit of culture I’ve consumed, the fact I believed I was, like every gay from a small town, Carrie Bradshaw. And I was looking for “can’t-live-without-each-other-love”, because, really, I’d never felt like I’d really been properly loved before. By anyone. Romantic or not. And so, when I built futures in my head they were monogamous. It was all I had ever seen. And I had made love, commitment and true romance all synonymous with monogamy.
At the christening we barely spoke. On the outside we were still the perfect gay couple: cooing over the baby, congratulating our friends, telling jokes only marginally over the edge of inappropriate for a christening. And for that day, everything appeared blissfully normal. But normality can be suffocating. On the way home, in the car, we broke: “Oh my God that was so normal we can’t cope.” So we checked ourselves into a cheap hotel that night, halfway between London and the Cotswolds, got absolutely hammered and defined the rules of our new setup. And at that point, there were no rules. Just communication. And that we can stop whenever either of us wants.
The second person I had sex with approached me in a bar and described what he wanted to do to me. I’d never felt a turn-on like it. Not that I’m not turned on by my partner – because various types of desire, of turn-on, are not mutually exclusive. Desire, as I’m learning, exists on various planes, in various spaces. Herein lay a huge learning curve: in an open relationship, you begin to experience totally varied and different types of desire to the type of desire you feel in a monogamous setup. I’ve had fast sex, slow sex, hot sex, sex I regret. I’ve made love to a stranger and had feelingless sex with a good friend.
The more people we told, the more we were asked my mother’s fated question: “How do you know he won’t find someone better than you?” After pushing back, I realised this wasn’t my friends and my mother telling me I was shit and my partner could – and perhaps should – find another, better partner. It was that everyone worries about this, too, in their own relationships. We’re all terrified that we are phonies and that if someone else came along we would be exposed and left to become the Miss Havisham type we were always destined to be.
The truth is, I don’t know he won’t find someone better than me. But can you know that in a monogamous relationship either? No. In fact, the answer, after a year of making mistakes and communicating about them in ways we never did before, is that it’s liberating to accept that. It’s freeing to see the end, because in seeing the end you have a reason to keep choosing the relationship.
And to me it has become an absurd claim that it would be possible to find someone better than him. Because a partnership, a love, a life that took seven years to build cannot be torn apart by something as new and naive as lust and, at most, momentary love. They are different emotions. They both provide rich experience, but they are in no way comparable. If anything, my tendencies towards jealousy and self-doubt have simmered away somewhat – because here was our get-out clause. And we are still in.
“It’s easier for queer couples,” a heterosexual friend told me, after I told her. And I think, for countless reasons, this is true: like the fact the centre still sees our relationships as fringe; the fact that sex for a lot of queer people is a mode of finding community, touch and family; the fact that we were kept out of normative conventions of relationships until a brutally recent seven years ago. But, at the same time, there is still the same fear, the same worry, the same risk of loss. So easier feels like too easy a word. Perhaps more accepted.
Culturally, we always think about the rush of the new: those heady days when you meet your partner and every move they make drives you to distraction. Then we do the merry dance of less sex, less communication, less fun, more bills, more plans, more stress, until we die or someone leaves.
And, yes, with every new partner I’ve been lucky enough to have an experience with over this moment in our relationship, I’ve experienced the rush of the new. But the rush of the new spills over into my primary partnership, too: new dynamics form, each scenario brings with it something for us to negotiate, and our sex is more adventurous than ever: perhaps because we learned new moves elsewhere or perhaps because we have a reinvigorated sense of desire for each other knowing that someone, elsewhere, has found this body in front of you desirable in new ways, too.
Our open relationship wasn’t born out of a lack of sex. Don’t worry, we’ve had that phase and we really did consider going open. But we decided then that if we were ever to do it, it couldn’t come from a place of trying to cure a wound, or fill a gap. That’s when the primary partnership ends. In fact, we’d only recently talked about getting married and then we decided to try the idea that non-monogamy might be an even more immense, powerful commitment to each other than a ring and a register.
How could that be possible? How could sleeping with other people be more of a commitment than marriage? Because in sleeping with others you are allowing your partner a deeper expression of their desires. Marriage is fantastic in many ways, but it is also a means of state control – one which produces couples who care for each other, and children who will become workers. But in the case of openness, I am committing to the fullness of his desires and mine, and the risks that come with expressing them. Commitment is another word I had got wrong, too. I always equated it with sacrifice, but I’m coming to learn it means a willingness to understand the changes in a person, to understand their fullness.
Of course, there are hard parts. With certain aspects – silly insecurities, double standards, needing to know every detail – you have to take on the individual responsibility of self-management of (some of) your own emotions. You have to accept that sometimes you are going to feel strange things and that your partner cannot be responsible for curing them. Or even always listening to them if they are unfair and unfounded. I’d been on multiple dates with someone, and felt deep worry when he told me he was going on a second. This was a feeling I had to– with the help of generous friends – self-manage. And lo and behold, he came home after what he described as an “impossibly average” date.
Something I’ve come to learn, something necessary for the success of truly any relationship, is that love is not control. Monogamy, too, is not control – and this is not my accusation. Because whether monogamous, open, polyamorous, the terms of the relationship should be agreed upon by each person within it, mutually, and not simply put there because it’s what – literally – the Bible says. I have radical queer friends who adore monogamy. I’ve met viscerally dull couples who are radically polyamorous. There’s no rhyme or reason for who it fits.
But the point is that non-monogamy is actually about care. It’s about seeing your partner, and yourself, as someone separate to you who has desires, feelings, emotions that they want to, and should be able to, share with other people – not just you. For us, at least, it’s created a dynamic of tantalising flux: one where sometimes you feel lonely, sometimes you feel powerful, sometimes you feel more in love than ever. But in understanding these dynamics that whirl around inside, and between, us both it feels more likely than ever that neither of us will find a better partner. Because if we can learn with empathy, compassion and selflessness to understand each other in what is deemed such a testing situation; if we can both let each other go for an evening every now and then, the reunion feels so much sweeter. Because you come home to someone who is committing to work hard to see you, to make space in their complicated emotional life for yours. And vice versa. That feels like more commitment, more love, than anything I’ve experienced before.
The number of people who identify as queer in the UK Census has increased over the past few years. This trend is in particular driven by the rising number of LGBT+ identities among people aged 16 to 24 years. The most popular sexual identity within this emerging group is bisexual – the romantic and/or sexual attraction to more than one gender. Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows an increase from 0.7 per cent in 2015 to 1.1 per cent in 2019. Rather than a sudden new surge of bisexual desires, increased acceptance, legal protection and visibility are likely to be the cause of this increase.
But why should we count how many people are bi, or study what their experiences are? Research is young in this field, but we’re already seeing that tossing all queer identities into one research bucket renders the unique struggles of being bisexual invisible. For a start, it’s hard to even get an accurate sense of the exact number of British people who are bisexual. Many people who are attracted to people beyond one gender, shy away from the identity label ‘bisexual’. When it comes to research, this reluctance has led scientists to come up with alternative ways to capture and categorise sexuality.
One of the most common tools used is The Kinsey Scale. First published in 1948 by biologist Dr Alfred Kinsey, it is used to place people on a spectrum of sexual attraction between entirely heterosexual and entirely homosexual, using a scale from 0 to 6. It also includes ‘X’ for those who are asexual. It was so successful that it is still the single most popular scale for classifying sexuality. It’s often what people are indirectly referring to when they say, “Aren’t we all a bit bi?”
When YouGov surveys conducted in 2019 used questions that mimicked The Kinsey Scale, researchers found at least a third of people aged 18 to 24 say that they are attracted to multiple genders. A startling figure compared to the 1 per cent reporting to the ONS. Only with research can we cut through the reluctance people have to say “I am bisexual”, and find out whether those attracted to multiple genders need more support than those who aren’t.
Since social scientists and other researchers have started to analyse the B, we have begun to understand the struggles that uniquely endanger bi people. Research shows us that bi women are hypersexualised, and stereotypes that see bi women as promiscuous sexual playthings feed into people’s existing rape myths.
Accordingly, studies have found that bisexual women are significantly more likely to be raped, repeatedly sexually assaulted, and to be the victims of intimate partner abuse than lesbian and heterosexual women. Had this research homogenised all women into one group, we might never have known that the stereotypes affecting bi women specifically place them at far greater risk of sexual victimisation.
A different cluster of toxic assumptions awaits bi men. Bisexual men are seen as lying, to themselves and others, because they are thought to be gay. And, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, bi men were also seen as murderers in disguise, catching AIDS when having sex with men and giving it their female partners. This left many bisexual men isolated and alone, failed by educational campaigns that rarely moved beyond gay spaces.
We need to acknowledge the unique needs of bi people, including a specific focus on bi men. If we don’t, we fail a huge amount of the population. Armed with bi-specific research, we stand a better chance of winning the fight back against the societal biases and misconceptions that hold bisexual people down.
As a young researcher, I didn’t know anyone else who was bisexual in my field, or, for that matter, in any field. It was rarely mentioned, not even in lectures specifically on sex and sexuality. When I graduated with my PhD in 2012, I had no idea how useful my background in criminal psychology would come to be when I turned my gaze to studying bisexuality. For my new book, Bi: The Hidden Culture, History And Science Of Bisexuality, I have found and spoken to researchers across the globe and in various disciplines who are all fighting for change.
I want the world to be a safer place for people like me. The best way that we can achieve that is to visibly support bi people. Let’s not allow the ‘B’ slip into the shadows of its colourful siblings.
For many years, Marija was happy but knew deep down something was missing in her relationships.
By Tahnee Jash
She had been in two long-term partnerships with men. The first led to marriage, and the second to a son.
It wasn’t until she was 40 that she met, and fell in love with, a woman.
“Before I came out, I met someone I decided to act on,” Marija, 76, tells ABC podcast, Ladies, We Need To Talk.
“That was a turning point that I wish to God I had done in my teens but then of course, I wouldn’t have had my son.”
She has now been in a committed relationship with a woman for the last 25 years.
‘I was afraid of being judged’
Marija, who came to Australia as a WWII refugee, says she was always attracted to women but wasn’t sure how her family would respond.
“[I come from a] migrant background and everyone was married, they were building up a new life in this country, and I don’t think my family would have understood,” she says.
“I was terribly afraid of being judged by them and losing their love.”
Marija had a great relationship with her second partner, who has since passed away, and when she made the decision to come out, he was very supportive.
“I think he suspected [it]. Then when I did tell him he kept saying, ‘The only thing that matters is your happiness’,” she says.
While Marija’s son took some time getting used to seeing his mum with another woman, he now has a great relationship with them both.
“He withdrew for a little while and then after he got to know my partner and realised that she wasn’t taking me away from [him and his dad] he did a flip and became her best friend.”
Sexuality is fluid and can change over time
When Marija was coming to terms with her identity 36 years ago, sexuality was not as openly discussed or understood.
“I had a very high-profile job with local newspapers and magazines, and I felt that that would have been jeopardised. In those days, comments about homosexuality were not very pleasant,” she says.
Dr Lisa Diamond, professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, has been researching sexual identity for over 30 years.
She says for many years, women were “socialised to think about female sexuality as shameful”.
“Most women develop an alienated relationship with their own sexuality because every time they have a sexual desire, they repress it,” she says.
Influences around us — from our family to the movies we watch — also encourage what we think.
“The idea is that there is this pressure on all women to be heterosexual and this inability to even think of anything else that prevents a lot of women from knowing what they actually want,” says Dr Diamond.
There’s also pressure to have this all worked out once you hit adulthood and is why some women come out later in life, especially after a big life event.
“The capacity for a same-sex relationship might have been there from the beginning but if you don’t have a chance to articulate that to yourself, then it might take a big life transition to wake up and actually ask yourself what you actually want,” Dr Diamond explains.
“We know that sexuality is a complicated spectrum that changes over time.”
Her first experience of dating was in her late 20s, with her husband who she had two children with and was in a relationship for 24 years.
“Our focus was on the children, [not] on me. Having said that, I was struggling inside but I just put my energy on them and brushed myself aside,” Jennifer, 61, says.
It was after watching a documentary about lesbians in Melbourne that Jennifer experienced an epiphany.
Jennifer didn’t know what to do next.
“I [thought I] can’t tell anyone, I’m married. I’m going to have to hold this inside me and never say anything,” she says.
After suppressing this for two years, a fatal accident involving her brother pushed her feelings to the forefront and that’s the moment Jennifer decided to come out.
“It was like my subconscious was saying, ‘Come on, life is short you’ve got to do something about this’,” she says.
It was in the months that followed that she decided to come out to her family and friends. After sitting in her lounge room for four hours rehearsing what she was going to say, she finally worked up the courage to tell her husband.
“It was a relief for us both because it made sense to everything in our world,” Jennifer says.
“He [replied and said] ‘Yes, I reckon a lot of women feel this in middle age’ and that was it. It was like we could breathe.”
Coming out to the family
During a countryside drive, Jennifer decided to tell her children too.
“I’m very close to my children and I just knew they’d know there was something weird going on with me. So I chose [to tell them] driving in the car one day,” Jennifer says.
“The words [were] like this vomit coming and [I said], ‘I’ve got something to tell you’ and I said, ‘I’m gay,’ Jennifer says.
“One of them is just like, ‘stop the car [so I can] get out’ and the other one said, ‘we just want you to be happy’.”
Both her children came to accept her news and Jennifer has a great relationship with them today.
Going through this experience and learning more about herself, Jennifer says hersexuality is more about the individual, rather than a label.
“For me, it’s about fluidity so I don’t call myself a lesbian,” she says.
“It’s more about the person I’m with; I don’t like [using] categories.”
Do you ever feel lost when it comes to the countless phrases coming out of LGBTQ+ spaces? Are you straight and trying to be a better ally, or are you LGBTQ+ yourself but don’t know how to describe yourself to others? There is good news, Kate Sloan’s new book 200 Words to Help You Talk About Sexuality & Gender is a resource that dives deeply into modern language and highlights the various interpretations of each word or phrase, along with the ways each word might be hurtful or misrepresentative when used in the wrong context.
For starters, Sloan tackles a huge range of topics from the basic concepts of gender and sex, along with the more niche ideas of stigma, biology, Kink & BDSM terminology, and words that just help with the use of the English language, such as pronouns, culture, and gender identities/roles. Each entry looks at the origin of the word (when it’s relevant), who might use that word, who might be upset if you use that word incorrectly, and much more.
For LGBTQ+ Folks
As a queer+trans person, I was struck by many entries in this book that helped me understand words I was using poorly. Some things were easier for me to learn over the years, like how “Gold Star Gay” can feel invalidating to bisexual people, people who have been victims of sexual assault, and people who came out later in life after having sexual relationships with someone of another gender. Other things, like the term “boi” originating in Black culture and being a facet of that culture were news to me, but explain why Black and Hispanic friends of mine would respond poorly when I used that word. There are so many ways our dearly beloved queer language has grown over the last few decades that it’s impossible for everyone to know the history of every word. But, thanks to resources like 200 Words, we can hope to better understand the context from which these phrases came.
Ultimately, this isn’t an attempt to “police” terms or phrases, merely an opportunity to learn the context of words we might have picked up while frequenting discreet websites in the ’90s, or even on Tumblr, Reddit, or Google more recently.
For Allies
If you are (or want to be) an ally for LGBTQ+ people in your life (or even the world at large), I vigorously encourage you to get your hands on a copy of this book. Partly, this is because there are just so many darn words to learn. Even more important, though, is that the English language cannot help us improve equity if we do not help it grow through its use. By discussing issues using proper language, we empower ourselves and those we discuss things with to lift LGBTQ+ people and voices to a better place in society.
One note, though: Many times, this book may caution you to consider whether to use a word for another person. For example, a nonbinary person might dislike the term “enby” and not identify with it. If you refer to them as an enby, they may think you are belittling their experience, even if you are trying to be supportive. So, to be safe, always ask someone what words they use to describe themselves and never, ever, ever correct someone’s use of those words. If you think someone is using a word in a harmful way, share your copy of the book with them so they can see another side to that word or phrase in that context. You should never, however, tell them they are using it wrong or try to get them to use a different word for themselves. That’s on them.
For Sex Ed
Sex education is a topic we feel strongly about at GeekDad. You can see our Top 10 Sex Ed Books post for reference (now updated to include this resource!), and we have covered various graphic novels and other media from an LGBTQ+ perspective over the years. The unfortunate truth is there is no such thing as a single resource to learn everything about the human body or our sexual, romantic, or gender identities. This book is an excellent starting point, but it doesn’t really cover the details of physical and emotional health that are vital to sexual education, so we encourage you to check our Top 10 post for more resources if you are looking for more holistic educational resources.
TL;DR
200 Words to Help You Talk About Sexuality & Gender is a fantastic reference for those wanting to learn more about how to discuss LGBTQ+ topics, regardless of your own level of experience or involvement with the LGBTQ+ community. You will find information on what each word means, who might use it, and how it might be inappropriate if used in the wrong context. It makes an excellent gift or an excellent accompaniment to sex education materials whether or not you’re a member of the LGBTQ+ community.
If you identify as straight but are open to queer experiences, you’re not alone. You may be called “heteroflexible,” a portmanteau that signals being “mostly straight” with a flexibility towards same-sex attraction.
What does heteroflexibility mean?
There’s not an objective definition of heteroflexibility. In fact, it hasn’t yet been used in the scientific study of the psychology of sexual orientation, said Pavel S. Blagov, Ph.D, associate professor of psychology at Whitman College.
One of the earliest cited writings on the term, by then-professor of sociology at Yale University Laurie Essig, was published by Salon in 2000. Essig, now a professor at Middlebury College, defined heteroflexibility as when someone “has or intends to have a primarily heterosexual lifestyle, with a primary sexual and emotional attachment to someone of the opposite sex.” But, as Essig continued, “that person remains open to sexual encounters and even relationships with persons of the same sex.”
What’s the origin of the term “heteroflexibility”?
The exact genesis of the term “heteroflexible” is unknown, but it’s been used as early as the 1990s. In the 1997 humor glossary of LGBTQ slang When Drag is Not a Car Race, heteroflexibility is defined as “bisexual, or at least open to sexual experimentation.”
Heteroflexible appeared to pick up steam on college campuses in the early 2000s, as displayed in Essig’s Salon article. A 2002 dispatch from The Buffalo News declared heteroflexbile the “hot term being bandied about on campus,” and defined it as “the condition of being not fully bisexual but open to adventure.”
How is heteroflexibility used today?
Today, people seem to use the term differently, said Blagov, and its use is being studied by scholars in gender studies, sociology, and public health.
“The concept seems to have different meanings across individuals and in different corners of popular culture,” he continued. There are several facets of sexual orientation that one may use heteroflexbility to refer to: someone’s identity, their sexual desires, their sexual behavior, or something else — or a combination of these.
Based on various sources online, Blagov senses that someone who describes themselves as heteroflexible may be trying to convey one or more of these concepts: “Some degree of attraction to the same sex; some degree of interest in same-sex sexual behavior; a positive attitude toward diversity in sexual orientation; an open mind about different identities; that they owe some allegiance to a heterosexual or straight identity; and that they do not identify as bisexual or homosexual.”
He also cited sociologist Héctor Carrillo and contributor Amanda Hoffman, who researched sexualities of American men in an aptly titled study, Straight with a pinch of bi. One one hand, Carrillo and Hoffman wrote, terms like heteroflexibility and “bi-curious” represent a renewed sense of sexual identity among young straight Americans with same-sex desire — and possibly a search for public recognition and societal acceptance.
At the same time, Carrillo argued, by not adopting a queer identity like bisexual, heteroflexibile people seek to remain in the “heterosexual category.” They want an indication that same-sex desire and behavior “are not altogether incompatible with heterosexuality.”
Blagov reiterated that heteroflexibility isn’t currently an established concept in the scientific study of psychology. “It is not referring to how a person’s mind works or any objectively defined way in which people differ,” he said. At least currently, it doesn’t indicate a proven difference among people. Rather, it’s a label people have started using to describe themselves and others.
The use of heteroflexible also likely differs across individuals and groups, and — like our definition of so many other words — may change over time.
Is heteroflexibility just bisexuality?
Heteroflexibility, Essig wrote, “is a rejection of bisexuality since the inevitable question that comes up in bisexuality is one of preference, and the preference of the heteroflexible is quite clear.”
At first, Essig said she was pissed at the term. “I resented the fact that they [young people] would root their marginal sexual practices in the safety of heterosexuality,” she said. Then, after reflecting, she embraced it because in her view, it could bring an end to heterosexuality’s dominance. In the future, Essig mused, everyone would be flexible.
Other scholars, however, don’t have such a rosy view of the term. In a 2009 article about queer representation in the media, media and communications professor Lisa Blackman wrote that “heteroflexible” serves to expand the boundaries of the “heterosexual” label rather than to normalize queer identities. Flexibility is merely a “temporary interruption” of heterosexual desire, a “break from the routine.”
Blackman goes on to say that the idea of flexibility serves to support the agency of heterosexual people, but not queer people. Queer attraction, at least in media at the time of Blackman’s writing, was seen as something novel for straight people (primarily women) to experience. She cites two examples — Samantha Jones in Sex and the City and Jessica in Kissing Jessica Stein — as characters who flirted with homosexuality, but only temporarily.
Does “heteroflexibility” describe queer desire in terms of…straightness? In Blackman’s sense, yes, said Andrew Cheng, postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Linguistics at Simon Fraser University.
While this argument is an academic look into film and television at the time, other queer people have decried the term for similar reasons. Writer Charlie Williams said in Affinity Magazine that the word heteroflexible erases bi identities, saying both heteroflexible and the opposite, homoflexible, are just “fancy words” for bisexual. Another writer, Kravitz M., called for people who feel attraction to multiple genders to question why they don’t call themselves bi, and claimed it might be because of internalized biphobia.
It’s important to remember, though, that the meanings and uses of identity labels change quickly — especially in the internet age — and that identities are dependent on local communities, said Cheng.
“The rise in heteroflexibility as an identification among, say, rural men in the Midwest today, might be very different from how it was used by city-dwelling college students in the nineties,” he continued.
Further, without much psychological research it’s hard to speculate out why someone may identify as heteroflexible (or bi-curious or “mostly straight”) instead of a queer identity, said Blagov.
All this to say, there’s no “correct” use of heteroflexible. It may not be its own sexual orientation — it’s been long known that sexual attraction can fall somewhere between hetero and homosexual — but anyone is free to identify as such. Sexuality, like language itself, can be flexible.
If you’ve ever wanted to watch a bunch of well-intentioned straight men ask gay men questions about sex, relationships, and coming out, this BuzzFeed video has you covered.
Watching straight men stare at their feet and fumble through asking questions like, “What if you’re both bottoms or both tops?” and, “Would you rather a just-a-little-bit-smaller-than-an-average dick or a way-too-big-to-do-anything-with dick?” (spoiler: it’s the too-big dick) is the most awkward thing I’ve watched in a while. Mostly because I’m now convinced that more straight men need to be friends with gay men stat so they’re not as painfully nervous and weird around them.
Plus, how cool would it be to see your straight guy friends and gay guy friends chilling and talking about “when the butt hole falls out”? Pretty cool.
Roberto Abreu, assistant professor in the psychology department at the University of Florida, discusses Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill and its banning discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity in classrooms with young children
Florida Rep. Michele Rayner delivers an impassioned speech vowing to challenge the controversial “Don’t Say Gay” bill passed by Florida’s Republican-led legislature during a rally March 12 on the front steps of City Hall in St. Petersburg, Fla.
One of the sections of Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill, passed by the state’s House and Senate, prohibits any discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade classrooms. Supporters say the bill will allow parents more participation and control around the discussion of topics they deem “sensitive” or “inappropriate” for young children; opponents, who have dubbed the legislation the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, find this reasoning both illogical and hypocritical.
“This bill is clearly an anti-LGBTQ bill,” says Roberto Abreu, an assistant professor in the psychology department at the University of Florida whose research focuses on the intersection of LGBTQ people of color in their families, parenting and community. “What really gets me about all of this is that parents already make comments in very heteronormative or cisnormative ways that bring up sexuality and sexual orientation and gender” pointing to widely practiced gender reveal parties and casual remarks about children and their classroom crushes.
Abreu, who holds a doctorate in counseling psychology and looks at parent-child relationships of parents of color and their LGBTQ children, took some time to discuss this legislation, how to have these conversations with young children in ways that are appropriate for their age and level of development, and what adults can do to overcome the homophobia and transphobia these bans are rooted in. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)
Q: Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill prohibits classroom discussions about sexual orientation or gender identity for students in primary grades or in ways that aren’t considered developmentally or age-appropriate for those students. In your experience, what would be an appropriate age to begin having conversations with children about sexual orientation and gender identity?
A: As soon as children bring it up you can start talking about it. Of course, children will bring it up in developmentally appropriate ways and our response should be in developmentally appropriate ways, right? We have research to show that children start to understand their gender as early as 3 years old, so once they bring it up, those are conversation openings. We shouldn’t be waiting for ‘the big talk’ in adolescence. We should start bringing up those conversations in a developmentally appropriate way as early as possible because the interesting thing is that parents are already bringing these things up. For example, statements like, ‘What girl/boy do you think is cute in your classroom? He/she may have a crush on you.’ Comments about sexual orientation and gender identity are made around children all the time, we just do it in very heteronormative and cisnormative ways. Nothing gets to me more than gender reveal parties where people are revealing gender, biology, chromosomes and genitalia. That’s what we’re doing, is revealing genitalia, so clearly people don’t have a problem talking about this unless it’s in the context of trans and queer folks. Also, shouldn’t we trust teachers, who are trained educators and have experience with youth and development, to have these conversations? We trust them to teach everything else with our kids.
Q: How is that different from assessing a child’s developmental readiness for these kinds of conversations? What is typically used to determine whether a child is developmentally ready to have these kinds of conversations?
A: I don’t know that I see a difference. Thinking developmentally, we should be thinking this way when we introduce any concepts in a classroom, not just when it comes to LGBTQ issues. It’s important, for example, to talk to children in elementary school about the proper and appropriate names for their body parts. I don’t necessarily think that there’s a formula here. The other interesting part about this bill is that it’s almost couched in a way for people to say that they just want to make sure that they’re talking about these things in the right way, and that these aren’t appropriate topics for children this young; but they are appropriate topics because we’ve been talking about them already. In that context, we shouldn’t even be having conversations with children about liking another girl or boy their age because that should also be deemed inappropriate.
Q: What are some examples of what a developmentally or age-appropriate conversation about sexual orientation or gender identity would sound like? What would be covered in that kind of discussion?
A: I’ll use an example from my own personal life. My husband and I have a 7-year-old and he got home one day last year and said, ‘Most of my friends have a mom and a dad.’ How can I have that conversation? (Teachers should also be addressing this in ways that are developmentally appropriate for any child to see their family represented, and know that their teacher cares to have this conversation about their family structure that might be different and maybe isn’t the norm.) Most children won’t have two dads or two moms, but teachers and schools and parents should be having these conversations. With the language of this bill, these kinds of conversations can never happen because how do you explain to a child that they have two dads, without bringing up sexual orientation? Children have questions. You don’t have to talk about romantic relationships at that point, but how do you talk about two men raising a family for a child who has two dads, or two moms, without naming who they are? Books that are being read in classrooms can show a range of people and families. This is just another aspect of diversity, and LGBTQ students deserve to be seen, heard and cared for.
The first thing I do, is I affirm or dispel any myths the child might have heard. In this specific example, I affirm that ‘Yeah, you are correct. Most of your friends don’t have two dads. Your dads are gay, meaning that we are attracted, we are in love, we like to form relationships and families with two men. Your friends’ parents might be heterosexual, or maybe they’re bisexual, but they have a mom and a dad.’ You’re putting the context into words that the child is using themselves. I think it is appropriate to be honest, direct, frank, and to use the language and wording that the child is using.
Q: Why do you think people seem to be so uncomfortable with the idea of educating children about their bodies in ways that include informing them about topics related to sex?
A: I think we’re a very conservative society. I think we can also question why we don’t teach sex-positive education in high school. Why don’t we talk about woman-identified individuals making decisions for their own bodies? Power and control is one explanation. Another could be about adults’ own projection of erroneously thinking that children aren’t ready to have these conversations. They need to be age-appropriate, but I think adults’ own projections about their own discomfort about these topics is part of it. Honestly, though, at the root of it, I think it’s about transphobia and homophobia. These bills are not happening in a scattered manner, and a lot of attention to this bill has been around sexual orientation, but it’s also about gender and legislators trying to erase trans youth. It is about completely erasing groups of people who we do not see as worthy of personhood and humanity, from physical spaces, from history, from books, from everywhere. I think that is the real reason, that it’s the discomfort about trans bodies and queer bodies existing fully and free, and as their authentic selves in society.
Also, society is contradictory. Sex is everywhere: on TV, in the movies, in advertising; but let’s not talk about it with our kids? There is a real dichotomy there. We are OK with lots of displays of sexuality, but not this? Kids need information about sex, and they need it from educators and parents. The problem is most parents are not equipped to talk about it, or simply do not know how. Also, for some kids, school may be the only place where they are accepted.
Q: What are the best ways to think about and approach equipping children with this kind of information?
A: Everyone might have their own reasons, but I think people should get help, and I don’t mean that in a condescending way. As an adult, you should do your own work. If you feel discomfort about talking about these topics — although there is a wealth of literature and evidence and Google — I understand. I understand that people might be uncomfortable, and I’m not mad at anyone’s discomfort, but don’t project that onto other people or pass that on to children or use children as pawns in this. Do your own work, do your own therapy, and equip yourselves with materials and resources, and learn about these topics. I think working on yourself is important, and a great place to start. Here are some examples where you can find age-appropriate LGBTQ books for kids.
“As a rule of thumb, if you’re hiding something… then you’re likely cheating to some degree.”
By Sophie Saint Thomas
Within the queer community, we like to joke that the straights are not okay. But if they can’t handle West End Caleb, the guy who went viral for “love bombing” New York City women with Spotify playlists before ghosting, how could they handle navigating emotional cheating within a polyamorous queer triad? Has a straight person ever needed to identify one’s bisexual identity, in terms of both romantic and sexual attraction, when pinpointing what constitutes emotional cheating? I once watched an ex have her out-of-town ex-turned-best-friend (it’s confusing, I know) platonically stay with her, in her bed, during Valentine’s Day weekend, then accuse me of being emotionally unavailable.
The straights are just fine, with a few notable but vocal exceptions. But the LGBTQ+ crowd needs to discuss emotional cheating — especially after the lonely lockdown and isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While having an ex sleep over, even if you don’t have sex, might be too much for my Scorpio heart, my Gemini friend Zachary Zane, a bisexual activist and Lovehoney sex and relationship columnist, would probably call me a prude. “Since queer people exist outside of traditional, heteronormative constructs, we’ve had to create and define our own relationships,” Zane tells Logo. “Queer people understand that a multitude of relationship types exist between a platonic friend and romantic and sexual partner. You can deeply love your best friend. You can sleep with your best friend periodically. You can be polyamorous and have casual sex partners, platonic life partners, and romantic partners. The options really are endless.”
I asked Zane if he’s ever felt emotionally cheated on. “LOL — no one cheats on me. All my partners are obsessed, and it’s hella annoying.” Geminis.
From a heteronormative, monogamous perspective, it’s probably hard to understand how emotional cheating could even happen to a queer person in a poly relationship. After all, doesn’t polyamory translate to “many loves?” It does, but the whole “ethical” part in ethical non-monogamy (ENM) necessitates communication to ensure that boundaries are respected.
“Emotional cheating can occur in ENM when expectations are not communicated properly,” Zane explains. “As a rule of thumb, if you’re hiding something, lying to your partner about something you’re doing or feeling towards someone else, then you’re likely cheating to some degree.”
Of course, not every queer person is in an open relationship, and it’s rude to assume so. But it is true that queer people — many of whom couldn’t even marry their long-term partners until recently — tend to find new and chosen families. “These relationships are frequently emotionally close and, for some folks, can at times seem to blur lines of what is strictly friendship and what may cross into something different or more,” says Dr. Laura Obert, a licensed psychologist and LGBTQ+ coach. “For those who have a primary committed relationship, this may lay the groundwork for emotional cheating being inadvertently more accessible if the relational boundaries are not clear.”
Bisexual “Sober Sexpert” Tawny Lara notes that while it is important to establish boundaries to prevent emotional cheating, in her experience, it’s also crucial to remember that one person cannot fulfill all of your needs, even if you are monogamous. “It’s important to have strong friendships outside of your partner(s). Expecting one person to satiate your every desire is unrealistic. It’s also important to discern healthy, external friendships from what you know in your gut to be emotional infidelity. And that’s a line that only you can draw for yourself.”
Lara says she has emotionally cheated in the past to satisfy a romantic void which she wasn’t getting at home. “On The Office, I see Jim and Pam’s relationship while she was with Roy as emotional infidelity. She confided in Jim, cried to Jim, had an intimate connection with Jim for years before they finally kissed, and she left her fiancé.” Not only can Lara pull fantastic pop culture references out of thin air, but she has been on both sides of the emotional-cheating equation. Lara found out that a former partner was texting his ex for weeks, including during a surprise birthday party she threw for him.
“I saw the ‘I miss you too’ texts pop up on his phone and was completely devastated,” she remembers. “It’s hard to compare that pain to the pain felt from a physical affair, but I definitely think there’s a difference between having a long-term emotional connection with someone versus a one-time fling. They can both cause pain, but an emotional affair has a particular sting to it.”
During the isolation of lockdown, physical cheating became more high-stakes than ever. While emotional pain and STIs are always risks, now you could get the potentially fatal COVID-19 virus from kissing. Unless you live with your partner, you likely couldn’t even regularly have sex with them.
While we couldn’t go to bars or sex clubs, we certainly could spend time on social media — perhaps too much time. Who didn’t end up at least chatting up an ex after sliding into their DMs one lonely night to make sure they were still alive? “It would make perfect sense that people reached out virtually and emotionally to find a sense of connection and meaning in a world that seemed to have gone sideways,” says Shut Up and Listen to Yourself author and LGBTQ+ therapist Dr. Joshua Estrin. Does this count as emotional cheating? Maybe, or maybe it would be par for the course in your queer friend group. We are pretty good at staying friends with our exes, after all. Ultimately, it’s up to you and your partner(s) to decide what kind of digital communication with current or former paramours is or isn’t permissible.
There’s truth to some stereotypes. Yes, some queer relationships between two women can provide more emotional availability than what your average straight girl is used to receiving from the West Elm Calebs of the world. And sure, some queer men are probably better at handling jealousy than the presumably cis, straight girls West Elm Caleb attracts.
Being part of the LGBTQ+ rainbow is fabulous, but lines can get blurry with all of those colors. Like everything, defining and identifying emotional cheating within a queer relationship requires communication and boundaries. You’ll hurt yourself and others without boundaries, whether it’s the fallout after your secret Zoom dates with an ex during the pandemic inevitably explode, or after you end up telling your boss things your partner doesn’t even know. Boundaries are essential, which is why I’m proud of my aforementioned ex for blocking me even though we ended on rough terms.
Charts and scales can help better explain many things in life, and sexuality is no different. One of the most popular scales used to understand sexuality is the Kinsey Scale, which was created to help describe a person’s sexual orientation. Though not without its limitations, this scale can be a useful way for some people to make sense of their sexual orientation.
What is the Kinsey Scale?
The Kinsey Scale is a visual representation of sexuality along a spectrum ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual. Originally called the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, the Kinsey Scale was created by Drs. Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Clyde Martin and first introduced in their book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948.
“The scale was created as a way to ‘measure’ someone’s sexual orientation beyond simply heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual, based on a spectrum-like scale where ‘exclusively heterosexual’ was on one end and ‘exclusively homosexual’ on the other,” explains Anne Hodder-Shipp, multi-certified sex and relationships educator and founder of Everyone Deserves Sex Ed.
At the time, Kinsey’s research found that most people fell somewhere between the two, Hodder-Shipp notes. This, and much of Kinsey’s research, was considered subversive and groundbreaking for its time.
That said, today the scale is considered to have some limitations, both in terms of its ability to accurately represent the vast array of experiences of sexuality and because it excludes nonbinary folks. Not everyone will feel like they fit into one of these seven categories, and that’s OK.
How it started.
The Kinsey Scale was named after Alfred Kinsey, who is widely considered one of the 20th century’s most significant sex researchers, according to sexologist Carol Queen, Ph.D. It’s no stretch to say that without his work, today’s sexual landscape would look very different and less diverse.
Kinsey, who was an entomologist, was hired at Indiana University to teach sex education, but there wasn’t much to draw from. So, with the help of a team of grad students, he began doing his own research, much of which ultimately changed the world of sexual education and understanding.
The Kinsey Scale was developed in an attempt to show how sexual orientation (specifically, heterosexuality and homosexuality) existed on a continuum, or spectrum. A common misconception today, Queen adds, is that “Kinsey was trying to codify a binary way of looking at sex. This is ahistorical, though.”
“People did think in binary, either/or terms in those days to a significant degree,” she notes but adds, “Among other things, the Kinsey scale illustrates how significant bisexuality is since everything in the middle of the scale could be called bisexual.”
How the Kinsey scale is used.
As mentioned, the Kinsey scale is used to categorize a person’s sexual attraction between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual. The scale runs from zero to six and includes an additional category labeled X, which attempts to represent asexuality.
Here’s what each label represents:
0: Exclusively heterosexual behavior or attraction
1: Predominantly heterosexual and only incidentally homosexual behavior or attraction
2: Predominantly heterosexual but more than incidentally homosexual behavior or attraction
3: Equally heterosexual and homosexual behavior or attraction
4: Predominantly homosexual but more than incidentally heterosexual behavior or attraction
5: Predominantly homosexual and only incidentally heterosexual behavior or attraction
6: Exclusively homosexual behavior or attraction
X: No socio-sexual contacts or reactions
(Note: Some versions of the scale use the term “slightly” instead of “incidentally,” and “mostly” instead of “predominantly.” So for example: “Mostly heterosexual and only slightly homosexual.”)
Pros & cons of the scale.
We know much more today about sexual orientation, attraction, and human sexuality, and so while the Kinsey Scale was groundbreaking for its time, it also has its limitations. Like everything else, it has its pros and cons.
Pros:
1. It acknowledges the spectrum of sexuality.
The Kinsey Scale does an excellent job of debunking the “either/or” thinking surrounding sexuality. It was the first scientific scale to put forward the idea that sexuality is a continuum and isn’t limited to being just heterosexual or homosexual. As Queen points out, the scale shows that sexual orientation can exist on a spectrum, and much of the spectrum thinking we do today—the ace spectrum, for instance—owes a lot to this conceptualization.
2. It highlights bisexuality.
The Kinsey Scale emphasizes the existence of bisexuality and the many ways a person can experience it in its categories one through five. Kinsey’s research at the time found 37% of the men interviewed had some kind of same-sex experience between adolescence and adulthood, and this number jumped to 50% for unmarried men by the age of 35. Among women, 13% had a same-sex experience. This data was groundbreaking for its time and made it clear that human sexuality was vast.
“It really helped make bisexuality visible, as well as helping bring homosexuality out of the closet. In my day (the ’70s, when I came out), the gay movement very openly acknowledged its debt to Kinsey,” Queen says.
3. Aids in understanding.
Queen says the Kinsey Scale can help a person (or a clinician working with people around sexuality issues) understand their own or their client’s sexual experience, help them visualize their sexual orientation if they find it helpful to do so, and show that this experience is on a continuum and there may be room for them to explore different options than they have so far.
Cons:
1. Excludes nonbinary folks.
The Kinsey Scale “maintains the sex and gender binary,” Hodder-Shipp points out. Describing people’s behavior as exclusively some mix of “heterosexual” or “homosexual” depicts gender and sex in binary terms, making the Kinsey Scale less useful for those who are nonbinary. Some trans and intersex people may also find these categories limiting, not fully nuanced enough, or exclusionary.
The scale wasn’t intentionally meant to exclude these groups of people, Queen notes; it is in many ways an artifact of its time, and language to describe gender diversity was simply in its infancy at the time the scale was developed.
2. Focuses on behavior rather than identity.
The Kinsey Scale focuses on behavior rather than identity. So rather than describing how much a person identifies as heterosexual or homosexual, it describes how heterosexual or homosexual their pattern of sexual behaviors has been. This distinction matters a lot to some people: For example, a lesbian who only came out later in life may largely have a history of having sex with men, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a lesbian.
According to Queen, Kinsey didn’t think it was appropriate to use orientation terms as anything but adjectives—he did not want us to use these words to define ourselves, but so far he has lost that battle with history, she says. “Still, when we think about why he felt so strongly, it might point to the fluidity of identity, or the way people can engage in all sorts of behavior that doesn’t match their ‘label,’ and when we look at our history of behaviors and attractions, those are really useful insights.”
3. Doesn’t consider romantic attraction.
The Kinsey Scale focuses on sexual attraction without distinguishing between sexual and romantic orientations, sex and relationship coach Azaria Menezes points out. For some people, there’s a difference between who we’re sexually attracted to and who we’re romantically attracted to, but this isn’t accounted for on the scale.
4. Oversimplifies sexual orientation.
In general, many people today argue that the scale can feel like an oversimplification of how many people experience sexual attraction. “Though it did technically create new sexual orientation ‘categories,’ the scale still simplified sexual attraction in ways that can feel arbitrary and even confusing,” Hodder-Shipp says.
“Like, what does it mean to be ‘incidentally’ homosexual or heterosexual? Where do I fall on the Kinsey Scale if I’m not really heterosexual but also definitely not homosexual? What if I feel lovey-dovey feelings toward pretty much any gender, but only sometimes feel sexually attracted to one gender?”
5. Can pressure people into categories they don’t resonate with.
Some people don’t desire to label their sexual orientation or attraction at all, Menezes points out. Not everyone feels comfortable being identified as a number on a scale, and with only seven points, the options are limited. And since there is so much new information when it comes to sexuality and seemingly infinite ways to experience sexual attraction, the Kinsey Scale may not quite “fit” anymore.
Other scales and variations.
Today, there are several other scales that try to present a visual representation of sexual orientation and identity. Two of the more popular and inclusive ones are the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid and the Storms Sexuality Axis.
The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid is a direct riff on the Kinsey Scale. It was created by Fritz Klein in 1978 and has seven categories, including sexual behavior, sexual attraction, sexual fantasies, lifestyle preferences, and more. It works by having each respondent rate their preferences in each category across three different points in time—past, present, and ideal—which improves upon some of the limitations of the Kinsey Scale. The Klein scale also does a better job of including the ace spectrum, as well as other gender identity scales of today, says Queen.
The Storms Sexuality Axis was developed by Michael D. Storms and plots eroticism on an X and Y axis, with heterosexuality on the Y-axis and homosexuality on the X-axis. While it expands on Kinsey’s ideas, it also allows for more inclusivity and considers infinitely more categories of bisexuality as well as asexuality.
The bottom line.
The Kinsey Scale was incredible and ahead of its time, but in many ways, it may not quite fit how we talk about sexuality and sexual identity today. It’s not a one-fits-all situation, and you absolutely don’t have to fit or identify within the Kinsey Scale.
If you do find yourself identifying with the parameters set on the scale, Menezes suggests “taking what you love and leaving the rest.”
Questions about your sexual identity can be complicated. There are tons of words to describe different sexual orientations: lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, queer, pansexual, and so many more. You may be wondering which one fits you best, if any. It’s important to keep in mind that labels can be helpful in understanding your sexual identity, but if you feel like there isn’t a particular label that suits you, that’s okay and doesn’t mean your identity is any less valid.
For some people, the question of “am I gay” is easy to answer. Some people can point to a moment when they knew they were gay, and others feel like they’ve always just known. For others, their journey of discovering their sexuality can be a little less linear. There’s no wrong way to go about it.
But by definition, to identify as gay would mean that you feel sexual and/or romantic attraction to someone of your same gender identity, says LGBTQ+ expert Kryss Shane. “Sometimes it’s a general awareness, other times it’s self-recognition from a same-sex friendship that begins to feel like something more, and sometimes it’s through sexual exploration,” Shane explains.
If you think that you might be gay, here are some resources and things to keep in mind as you explore your sexuality.
You don’t have to have it all figured out.
Like we said, there are a lot of terms people use to describe their sexual identity and/or gender orientation. Some of them might even feel like they fit for a while, but you could later decide that they don’t really describe who you are. Learning about yourself and your sexuality is a journey, and it’s actually a really beautiful thing.
Your safety is important.
If you don’t feel it’s safe for you to be out in certain contexts—whether with family, at work, at school, or anywhere else—you should trust that instinct. It doesn’t mean you’re denying who you are, it means you’re making the best and safest decision for you.
You don’t have to justify or explain your identity to anyone you don’t want to.
If you want to share your journey with people in your life, go for it! But if you’re not ready to come out yet or share this part of yourself with people, that’s okay, too. You can share as much or as little as you want when it comes to your sexual orientation.
You aren’t alone.
Although your journey with your sexual orientation is unique, you don’t have to do it alone. If it feels safe, you can include your loved ones as you figure it all out, but if that’s not an option for you, you’re still not alone. There are tons of supportive LGBTQ+ people who can support you on your journey.
Some organizations you might want to look into if you’re trying to find your LGBTQ+ community are:
PFLAG. There are over 400 chapters across 50 states, so you can connect with LGBTQ+ people in your area who have been where you are.
Q Chat Space. If you’re between the ages of 13 and 19 and questioning your sexuality, you can join live online chats for LGBTQ+ and questioning teens facilitated by experienced staff who work at LGBTQ+ centers around the country.
TrevorSpace. This is an online community for LGBTQ+ young people ages 13 to 24, where you can join discussion groups and get advice from other people.
Your local LGBTQ+ community center. If you live in an area with a dedicated LGBTQ+ community center, they likely have support groups for people who are LGBTQ+ or questioning their sexual identity. They may also have groups for LGBTQ+ people of specific races, ethnicities, ages, or other intersecting identities.
Your local community center. Even if you don’t have an LGBTQ+ community center, your local community center may have an LGBTQ+ support group or LGBTQ+ social events that you can check out.
Find support and comfort through queer representation.
Reading books about LGBTQ+ people or watching LGBTQ+ movies can help you make sense of your own identity. There are tons of movies and TV shows with gay, queer, and lesbian representation that you can stream. Or you can start getting into the many LGBTQ+ podcasts out there, from ones that teach you about queer history to ones that address issues that LGBTQ+ people face today.
You can always reach out for help if you need it.
In addition to the above organizations that provide support groups and other forums for connecting with LGBTQ+ people, there are plenty of other resources you can turn to as you figure things out.
The Trevor Project. The Trevor Project has tons of resources to help you learn about different sexual orientations, mental health, gender identity, and more. They also offer LGBTQ+ informed crisis counselors you can talk to via chat, phone, or text.
The LGBT National Help Center. This organization operates three national hotlines to provide peer support, information, and other resources to LGBTQ people. They also offer support via online chat and weekly moderated chats for LGBTQ youth.
The It Gets Better Project. It Gets Better helps highlight stories and connect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth around the world. They also have a resource page where you can find information and support about everything from crisis resources to legal assistance to housing insecurity, with a focus on LGBTQ+ people.
I’ve slept with most of my friends. I mean that literally — I’ve shared a bed and cuddled with nearly all of them. I know who likes to be a little spoon and who prefers to be a big spoon; I also know how loud each of them snores. On top of that, I’ve made out with a good chunk of them, given oil massages to some and had full-on sex with others. To me and many other queer people, this shit is normal. Physical, sometimes erotic, touch, is an integral part of many of our friendships. From what I gather, sexual friendships still pretty uncommon outside of the LGBTQ community — what’s this all about?
To be fair, for straight identifying people, there’s an entire culture built around an obsession with sex and what it means to have it. Non-queers seem terrified of being “friend-zoned,” which is lackluster way of saying that someone they think owes them sex doesn’t want to sleep with them. I want to avoid broadly generalizing — especially since gay men are stereotyped as sex-crazed and outlandishly promiscuous — but these constructs that I describe are very real. When my straight friends have sex with each other, I am always sure of one thing: They either feel like they have to end the friendship or they decide to get into a long-term monogamous situation. But what if neither of those options serve them?
Whenever I see these friends face this dilemma, I want to scream into the void. It doesn’t need to be this way. By thinking that they need to choose between cutting off a friendship or ascribing more meaning to it purely because there’s sex involved, they’re robbing themselves of all the glorious nuance that can exist in a physically intimate friendship.
I’m just going to say it: Queer people are better at navigating sexual grey areas. Could non-queers learn a thing or two about friendship from us? I asked some experts to help me dole out some sage advice on fostering a sexual friendship without all the drama. Here are a couple of things to keep in mind.
Sex doesn’t have to be the defining factor of your relationships
Mainstream American culture has taught us that physical intimacy outside of our family has to be sexual. Something as simple as kissing a friend will get most Americans flustered, where in many cultures around the world, kissing on the cheek or even holding hands is devoid of sexual meaning. Not here, where we draw the line at chest bumps and where “no homo” became the mantra of a generation.
Queer Americans, broadly speaking, have been able to free ourselves of those constraints. “The queer community formed as a community precisely because they were prohibited from touching each other. They came together to touch each other,” Thomas Roach, a professor of philosophy and cultural studies at Bryant University and author of “Friendship as a Way of Life,” tells me. In the U.S., queerness was criminalized for a long time and many queer people still experience rejection from their families.
For that reason, friendships became a primary source of physical touch as well as a means of survival. Sex still matters, obviously, but it’s peripheral to the strong emotional bonds we have to forge with others in our community. “One salient aspect of queer friendship is that sex is not necessarily the fulcrum around which a relationship turns. Sex is not necessarily the make or break of a queer friendship, nor is it the great definitional divider of friend versus lover,” Roach tells me. “Friendship is formless, amoeba-like, and can be invented from A to Z. Unlike romantic relationships and marriage — which are overburdened with cis-hetero courtship rituals and scripts — friendship is ours to create. And queers have been incredibly innovative in this regard!”
When we let go of the idea that friendships are inferior to romantic and monogamous relationships, we can start to expand the possibilities of what we want our friendships to look like. Sometimes, that can involve sex.
I found a great amount of truth in Roach’s observations: My most intimate and freeing relationships are with queer friends and the same time, none of them are strictly defined by sex (or the lack thereof). If I do have sex with a friend, it’s almost a way of showing them how much I love them as a friend. I realize that this is completely counterintuitive to how most heterosexual people are taught to navigate the world, but in the absence of scripts, my most authentic emotions have been able to thrive.
Strong friendships come from a shared understanding of the world
Roach also points out that recent history has proven the importance of queer friendships. From Stonewall, to the AIDS crisis to the Pulse nightclub shooting, queer people are constantly reminded that we are not beloved by all. This feeling of shared estrangement creates a foundation for deeper connection and might explain another phenomenon among us: we are generally much better at staying friends with our exes. That’s because we’re also more likely to have shared identity-affirming experiences outside of the romantic relationship itself — maybe our former partner took us to our first gay club or they taught us how to have safer sex.
The future of friendships looks pretty queer
Thinking about the intimacy of queer friendships also got me thinking about the future of friendships in general. As queerness becomes less stigmatized and the need for LGBTQ-specific spaces disappear, will queer friendships lose thier spark and start to resemble heterosexual ones? Will we even have anything to bond over down the line, once we have all our rights?
Maybe, or maybe not. But I doubt that we’ll have to grapple with this question in our lifetime. “As much as queerness has become more mainstream, there is so much anti-trans legislation circulating at this moment in time,” Ariella Serur, a queer dating coach, tells me. “There is still an epidemic of violence against trans folks, particularly trans women of color, so non-stigmatization still feels far away for the LGBTQIA+ community as a whole.” She’s right.
As long as there are attacks against anyone in our community, friendship is likely to remain the foundation of our culture. Instead of thinking about the heterosexualiztion of queer friendships, a more likely outcome, I hope, is that there will be a queering of heterosexual friendships. A staggering 15% of Gen-Z identifies as LGBTQ, more than any generation before it. I can’t help but feel that more people are realizing the limitations of a label as reductive as “straight” and looking for a way out.
Queerness frees us up to express ourselves in infinite ways. It also allows us to see physical touch as a means, rather than an end. “If there’s anything to celebrate about the modern LGBTQ community, and if queer culture has anything significant to contribute to the long history of intimacy rites and rituals, it’s an inventive ethics of queer intimacy,” Roach tells me. “It’s an ethic that can yield great pleasure and deep love.”
A few years ago, Rabbi Sara Paasche-Orlow was spending time with, and comforting, a friend who was dying of cancer. Along with all of the usual difficulties and complexities of end-of-life care, there was an additional concern for the friend. Despite being married to her lesbian partner, she didn’t feel like she could be open about it with the hospice worker.
“When hospice came in, I couldn’t stay next to her in the bed,” the friend told Paasche-Orlow, “I had to separate myself. I had to pretend I was something I wasn’t.”
Although Paasche-Orlow never learned the exact reason for the discomfort, her friend’s reluctance to reveal her sexual identity is widespread among non-heterosexual senior citizens in long-term care. A recent national survey of this population by the National Resource Center on LGBT Aging—which provides support and services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender elders—found that the respondents were frequently mistreated by care-center staff, including cases of verbal and physical harassment, as well as refusal of basic services. Some respondents reported being prayed for and warned they might “go to hell” for their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In Paasche-Orlow’s case, her friend’s statement haunted her so much that she launched a series of programs to help long-term-care residents and staff members deal with the barriers to care for LGBT seniors—and the health disparities that may result. Her aim is to guard these seniors from being forced back into the closet as they age.
“I couldn’t go back and change it for my friend, but we could start thinking much more proactively about this,” Paasche-Orlow said.
With gay marriage legal nationwide and organizations such as The LGBT Aging Project, a nonprofit that advocates for equal access to life-prolonging services, in operation for more than a decade, Americans should theoretically be living in a golden age for LGBT seniors. Yet the LGBT Aging Center’s survey found that only 22 percent of respondents felt they could be open about their sexual identities with health-care staff. Almost 90 percent predicted that staff members would discriminate based on their sexual orientations or gender identities. And 43 percent reported instances of mistreatment. Meanwhile, few elder-care providers have services directly targeted at helping them.
To deal with this problem, Paasche-Orlow decided to integrate LGBT-focused programs into her work as the director of Religious and Chaplaincy Services at Hebrew SeniorLife, a Harvard-affiliated organization that provides health care to more than 3,000 Boston-area elders. Paasche-Orlow’s programs range from sensitivity training to bringing in LGBT youth from local high schools to spend time with residents.
Although the residents are grateful for the programs, community members such as Mimi Katz acknowledge there’s still a long way to go. Katz, who came out as a lesbian in 1968, lives in a Hebrew SeniorLife facility in Brookline, Massachusetts. She says that one of the major problems today’s elders must contend with is unspoken homophobia. “In the more liberal Brookline kind of setting, nobody is going to be overtly homophobic,” she said. “It’s the same thing as racism. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a racist, but then somebody will say, of one of the black aides, ‘Oh, she’s so well-spoken.’ That kind of thing. Or somebody will say to me, about a woman whose child is gay, ‘Oh, the heartache she goes through.’”
Katz can’t help but be exasperated when these moments occur. “It’s like, ‘Hello!’” she said.
In terms of concrete activities offered by Hebrew SeniorLife, Katz was especially appreciative of her community’s screening of the 2010 documentary Gen Silent, which follows the stories of six LGBT senior citizens who must navigate the intricacies of a long-term care system that is unsupportive of LGBT individuals. But Katz believes what will ultimately benefit LGBT elders the most is staff training. “The only way to deal with it is by example,” Katz said.
According to Paasche-Orlow, most care providers and staff members would never knowingly discriminate against someone because of their sexual identity. But that doesn’t mean LGBT seniors feel like they can be themselves. There’s a difference, Paasche-Orlow acknowledged, between wanting to provide a safe environment and actually providing one. “What we know about the whole field of cultural competency is that, unless I really understand the person I’m serving, I’m going to provide them with what I personally would like, or what I think they need.”
For example, a well-meaning staff member might accidentally make an LGBT elder uncomfortable by asking certain questions—about spouses, children, or grandchildren—that assume the resident is heterosexual. “Instead, we encourage people to ask, ‘Who are the important people in your life?’” Paasche-Orlow said.
Paasche-Orlow’s work does seem to be influencing the Hebrew SeniorLife staff. “The series of LGBT trainings that we went through opened my eyes to the experiences and needs of the transgender community,” said Marie Albert Parent Daniel, a nurse at Boston’s Hebrew Rehabilitation Center who now considers herself an LGBT advocate. “The trainings also gave me language and terminology to help support and educate staff members who may be struggling with how to best care for LGBT residents. … It hurts my heart to see that there are elderly people who are afraid to share their stories and live openly.”
Although an increasing number of long-term care facilities throughout the country are doing more to reach out to LGBT seniors, significant progress is needed before this becomes a widespread practice, said Tari Hanneman, director of the Health Equality Project at the HRC Foundation. “Unfortunately, because so many LGBTQ elders are not comfortable being out, aging service providers often do not realize that they are serving this population and do not recognize that they may need to change their policies and practices to become more LGBTQ-inclusive.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.