Young men’s rationales for non-exclusive gay sexualities

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests it is useful to distinguish sexual identities among young men at the gay end of the spectrum because of group differences between primarily gay, mostly gay and gay orientations on several assessed physiological, behavioural and self-report measures. However, little is known about individuals' rationales for choosing sexuality labels beyond traditional gay or bisexual categories. We addressed this issue by interviewing 24 young men with a non-exclusive gay orientation about their sexual desires and histories, drawing on both qualitative and numeric data. Undertaking an inductive analysis, we found four distinct rationales for identification with a sexual orientation label: sexual, romantic, intellectual and internalised homophobia. By examining what young men mean when they classify themselves as primarily gay, mostly gay or bisexual-leaning gay, this article provides data to understand these issues and proposes that greater focus should be placed on sexual identity for non-exclusive gay men. Although the sexual and affectional components of sexual orientation are meaningful, previous research has not sufficiently accounted for the importance of intellectual, cultural and romantic factors in non-exclusive sexual orientations. To address these issues, the use of in-depth interviews should be incorporated in future studies.

Introduction to the Special Section on Bisexual Health: Can You See Us Now?

“…Even though decades (if not centuries) of cross-cultural documentation in art, artifacts, history, literature, and more recently, scientific research clearly demonstrates wide variability in sexual behaviors, attractions, and identities, the intelligibility of bisexuality specifically is continuously contested. This is ironic given the substantial amount of recent research that demonstrates sexual fluidity (including in relation to identity) is common, particularly with work focused on women (Diamond, 2000, 2008; Diamond, Dickenson, & Blair, 2017) and more recently on men (McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018; Savin-Williams, 2017; Vrangalova & Savin-Williams, 2012). Additionally, recent psychophysiological research has examined issues such as relationships of sexual identity and category-specific sexual response (or not) to sexual stimuli with connotations for bisexual women (Chivers, 2017), as well as bisexual men (Rieger et al, 2013; Rosenthal, Sylva, Safron, & Bailey, 2012).…”

Women’s rationales and perspectives on “mostly” as a nonexclusive sexual identity label.

“…Indeed, Diamond's (2008b) participants who exhibited sexual fluidity regularly reported their orientation shifting between bisexual and lesbian or heterosexual and they used sexual identity labels to make this shift. Given this, examining the potential benefit of nonexclusive sexual identity categories beyond bisexuality is a worthy endeavour (McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018).…”

“…qualitative interviews are an important methodological tool in assessing sexuality, particularly when used alongside other measures (McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018;Weinrich, 2014).…”

“…Incorporating terms such as heteroflexible, research on "mostly" categories has also emphasized the importance of sociocultural factors in understanding sexuality (Carrillo & Hoffman, 2018;Scoats, Joseph, & Anderson, 2018). In their qualitative study of young men with nonexclusive sexualities (i.e., men who do not identify as either exclusively straight or gay), McCormack and Savin-Williams (2018) found that, in addition to sexual and affectional components of sexuality consistent with the existing literature, cultural and intellectual issues influenced how some young men on the gay side of the sexuality spectrum negotiate sexuality labels. Here, they highlight the importance of recognizing the influence of social context in how mostly sexualities are processed intellectually (see also Plummer, 2015).…”

“…Despite being categories, “mostly” labels support a continuum approach to understanding sexuality because of the significant diversity that occurs within them (Anderson & McCormack, 2016; Savin-Williams et al, 2017), supporting the contention that sexual identity categories are social constructs by which people make sense of their diverse sexual and romantic desires (Plummer, 1995; Savin-Williams, 2014; Weeks, 1985). This narrative approach whereby people make sense of their sexual selves through stories and narratives (Hammack & Cohler, 2009) is one reason why qualitative interviews are an important methodological tool in assessing sexuality, particularly when used alongside other measures (McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018; Weinrich, 2014).…”