Beyond Sexual Orientation: Integrating Gender/Sex and Diverse Sexualities Via Sexual Conﬁgurations Theory

Arch Sex Behav DOI 10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Beyond Sexual Orientation: Integrating Gender/Sex and Diverse Sexualities via Sexual Configurations Theory Sari M. van Anders Received: 14 May 2013 / Revised: 12 September 2014 / Accepted: 25 December 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Abstract Sexual orientation typically describes people’s sexuality in constructive and generative ways informed by both sexual attractionsordesiresbasedon their sex relativeto that of biology and culture, and that it is a potential starting point for atarget.Despiteitsutility,ithasbeencritiquedinpartbecauseit sexual diversity studies and research. fails to account for non-biological gender-related factors, partnered sexualities unrelated to gender or sex, or potential diver- Keywords Sexuality Á Intimacy Á Gender/sex Á Polyamory Á gences between love and lust. In this article, I propose Sexual Asexuality Á Sexual orientation ConfigurationsTheory(SCT)asatestable,empiricallyground- ed framework for understanding diverse partnered sexualities, separate from solitary sexualities. I focus on and provide models of two parameters of partnered sexuality—gender/sex and partner number. SCT also delineates individual gender/sex. I Introduction discuss a sexual diversity lens as a way to study the particularities and generalities of diverse sexualities without privileging Sexual orientation is largely used as the primary way to describe either. I also discuss how sexual identities, orientations, and a person’s sexuality (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2014;Rosario& statuses that are typically seen as misaligned or aligned are Schrimshaw, 2014). Since understandings of sexual orientation more meaningfully conceptualized as branched or co-inci- generally revolve around gender, this means that gender isthe de dent. I map out some existing identities using SCT and detail facto foundation for categorizing sexuality. More accurately, its applied implications for health and counseling work. I two genders are a necessary foundation for categorizing sexu- highlight its importance for sexuality in terms of measure- ality:anindividual’sgenderandthegender(s)ofthosewhomthe ment and social neuroendocrinology, and the ways it may be individual finds sexually attractive. But is it gender or sex? Sex useful for self-knowledge and feminist and queer empow- (biological, evolved, physical features related to femaleness, male- erment and alliance building. I also make a case that SCT ness, and sex diversity) actually seems to be the unstated but changes existing understandings and conceptualizations of underlying feature that is evoked in lay and academic dis- cussions of sexual orientation (e.g., Freund, 1974; Pillard & Weinrich,1987).Butdoesthatmeangender(socialized,cultural featuresrelatedto masculinity,femininity, andgenderdiversity) is irrelevant to sexual orientation? The scant empirical evidence about the universal centrality of sex over gender in sexual orientation leaves the question ‘‘Is it S. M. van Anders (&) Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 530 Church gender or sex?’’open. For example, if one is sexually attracted to St., Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA men, is one attracted to penises? Social identities? Body frames? e-mail: [email protected] Interactions? And, how is sexual orientation defined if one is attracted to masculinity regardless of the sex of the person presenting S. M. van Anders Department of Women’s Studies, University of Michigan, Ann or embodying it? What about attractions to feminine men? The Arbor, MI, USA concept of sexual orientation bulldozes these distinctions in ways 123 Arch Sex Behav Table 1 Sexual identities, orientations, and statuses: definitions, broad disciplinary purviews, and examples Defining features Disciplines of Sexual parameter examples major focus Gender/sex Partner number Other components Identity Labels, communities, politics, Sociology, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, Polyamorous, asexual, Dom, sub, kink- positioning political heterosexual, butch, femme, demisexual, player,slut, identified, etc. sciences,social pansexual, person-not- virgin, single-by-choice psychology gender Orientation Interests, approaches, attractions, Psychology, Male-oriented, female- Multisexual, nonsexual, Kink-oriented fantasies (also used by some as psychiatry oriented, same-sex sexual, unisexual, multierotic, an umbrella for itself plus homosexual, bisexual, unierotic, identity and status) heterosexual, monosexual multinurturant, uninurturant Status Behaviors, activities Public health, MSM, WSW, heterosexually Multipartnered, In the lifestyle anthropology, active unipartnered, history abstaining, not sexually active that are neither scientifically useful nor reflective of lived experi- Attending to sexual orientation,3 sexual identity, and sexual ences1 (e.g., see Califia, 1999; Serano, 2013). behavior (see Table 1for definitions of these terms) as related but Sexual orientation as defined by gender (or is it sex?) is distinct phenomena could be crucial to scientific theories of largely positioned as the singular defining feature of people’s sexualities and also to making meaning of sexual lives as many sexual selves, but should it be? There are a number of other have argued(Klein, Sepekoff,& Wolf, 1985;Laumann, Gagnon, axes along which sexuality could revolve, including age, partner Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2014;Sanders, number, type of sexual activity, consent, solitary sexuality, and Reinisch, & McWhirter, 1990). intensity among others (e.g., Califia, 1999). And there is no a Of course, sexual orientation is largely understood to be priori reason why these should be secondary or less important sexual, meaning that it is oriented around desires for genital con- relative to gender for characterizing sexualities.2 For example, tact and/or erotic pleasure. But is sexual orientation always and one could argue that interest in sexual partners at all is a pre- only sexual? As Diamond (2003b) noted, sexual orientation requisite for gendered sexual interests. Thus, preferred or actual seems to orient love in addition to lust, and others have argued for sexual partner number could be a key way that people come to similar subconstructs (Klein, 1990; Weinrich, 1988). A narrow understand their sexual selves (Tweedy, 2011). But sexual ori- sexually-focused interpretation of sexual orientation fails to entation as currently utilized largely precludes these possibilities. capture all of the intimate phenomena people actually use it to Sexualorientationislargelyseentobefixedandimmutable,a mean. For example, how could a unitary lust conceptualization ‘‘rock’’that sexual identity is constructed upon (Bogaert, 2012b; of sexual orientation accurately categorize the sexuality of a Gagnon, 1990). This parallels notions of sex and gender, with personwhoisattractedtomenandfallsinlovewithwomen?But sexthefixedfoundationforaconstructedgender(Delphy,1993; a broad interpretation that is inclusive of lust and love reduces Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2011; Rubin, 1975). In other words, the precision and utility of the term. What are we including in sex ? culture = gender is an equation that seems to be the basis sexual orientation anyway? for thinking sexual orientation ? culture = sexual identity. But Inthisarticle,IintroduceSexualConfigurationsTheory(SCT) is sexual identity really just a sort of glorified culture-infused asa waytoaddress thecomplexitiesofactualpeople’s sexualities. orientation by anothername? And, can behavior bemore central I argue that each of us has a sexual configuration that is composed to theories of sexuality than merely being what people do? of locations in multiple sexual dimensions. These dimensions relate to gender and sex. They relate to partner number. They 1 Lived experience refers to stories and accounts of what it means to live relate to dimensions that I do not focus on in this article but which as a specific person within a specific set of social contexts. Lived others may wish to focus on. Both love and lust are delineated. experience also conveys the notion that group members have valuable knowledge about their group and social location, and that this insider And, behavior, identity, and orientation are treated as simulta- knowledge is an important resource for scholars and others (van Manen, neously related and distinct. SCT models and connects diverse 2004). Sociallocation refers to the place a specific person occupies along sexualities in ways that are culturally situated and scientifically multiple axes of identity, reflecting intersectional thinking (Anderson, 2012; Crenshaw, 1991). 2 Scholars have argued the same for sex as characterizing individuals, i.e.,thatitisnotaprioritheoneoverarchingdefiningdifferencefeatureof 3 I explain my reasoning for employing the term ‘‘sexual orientation,’’ humans (Butler, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991; Markowitz, 2001; Spelman, despite itslimitations, inthe section‘‘‘‘SexualOrientation’’as aTerm and 1988). Concept: A Claim for Retention/Reclamation’’. 123 Arch Sex Behav generative. It adopts a fundamentally dynamic perspective on used to categorize people. This categorization has been critiqued sexualities, treating change as potentially central rather than (e.g., Diamond, 2014;Korchmarosetal.,2013; Vrangalova & peripheral, irrelevant,oraberrant. SexualConfigurations isnot Savin-Williams, 2012), with the recognition that individuals with another word for sexual orientation; it is a broader and more the same‘‘Kinsey number’’may not actually have the same sex- comprehensive framework

Load more