Archives of Sexual Behavior https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01565-1 ORIGINAL PAPER Who Counts as Sexually Fluid? Comparing Four Diferent Types of Sexual Fluidity in Women Lisa M. Diamond1 · Jenna Alley1 · Janna Dickenson2 · Karen L. Blair3 Received: 18 February 2019 / Revised: 19 September 2019 / Accepted: 3 October 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Previous research has examined the phenomenon of “sexual fuidity,” but there is no current consensus on the specifc mean- ing and operationalization of this construct. The present study used a sample of 76 women with diverse sexual orientations to compare four diferent types of sexual fuidity: (1) fuidity as overall erotic responsiveness to one’s less-preferred gender, (2) fuidity as situational variability in erotic responsiveness to one’s less-preferred gender, (3) fuidity as discrepancy between the gender patterning of sexual attractions and the gender patterning of sexual partnering, and (4) fuidity as instability in day-to- day attractions over time. We examined how these four types of fuidity relate to one another and to other features of women’s sexual profles (bisexual vs. exclusive patterns of attraction, sex drive, interest in uncommitted sex, age of sexual debut, and lifetime number of sexual partners). The four types of fuidity were not correlated with one another (with the exception of the frst and fourth), and each showed a unique pattern of association with other features of women’s sexual profles. The only type of fuidity associated with bisexuality was overall erotic responsiveness to the less-preferred gender. The fndings demonstrate that future research on sexual fuidity should distinguish between its diferent forms. Keywords Bisexuality · Sexual orientation · Sexual fuidity · Individual diferences · Women Introduction time (reviewed in Diamond, 2016). Yet, do these divergent experiences represent the same basic phenomenon? If so, then Extensive research has investigated sexual fuidity, typically women who are “fuid” according to one defnition should be defned as a capacity for variation in sexual responsiveness “fuid” according to the others, and in such a case it would be due to situational, interpersonal, and contextual infuences meaningful to conceptualize sexual fuidity as an overarching (reviewed in Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2008b). Numer- individual diference dimension. Alternatively, the construct ous sexual phenomena have been ascribed to sexual fuid- of “sexual fuidity” might be inappropriately combining dis- ity, such as the fact that individuals sometimes experience tinct forms of sexual variability that have diferent origins sexual desires that run counter to their self-described sexual and implications. If so, it would be important to determine orientation (Chivers & Bailey, 2005; Chivers, Rieger, Latty, how these diferent forms of sexual variability relate to one & Bailey, 2004; Diamond, 2008b), sometimes report sexual another and to other features of individuals’ sexual histories behavior that diverges from their self-described sexual orien- and profles. This is the aim of the present research. tation (Diamond, 2008b; Dixon, 1984), and sometimes report Before proceeding, it bears noting that the present study focuses changes in their pattern of sexual attractions and behavior over on variability in the gender organization of one’s erotic respon- siveness, meaning the degree to which one’s erotic responsiveness * Lisa M. Diamond depends on the gender of the erotic target (a construct convention- [email protected] ally denoted as sexual orientation). Yet, gender is certainly not the only dimension that organizes erotic responsiveness: Rather, 1 Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 South stable patterns of erotic responsiveness have been observed with 1530 East, Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251, USA regard to dimensions such as partner age and type of sexual activ- 2 Program in Human Sexuality, University of Minnesota, ity (Chivers, Roy, Grimbos, Cantor, & Seto, 2014; Seto, 2012), Minneapolis, MN, USA and recent models of sexuality suggest the value of substituting 3 Department of Psychology, St. Francis Xavier University, our conventional emphasis on gender-based sexual orientations Antigonish, NS, Canada Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 Archives of Sexual Behavior with a broader notion of sexual confgurations (van Anders, 2015) fuidity difers from bisexuality (as reviewed in Diamond, 2008a, capable of incorporating all relevant organizing domains. Theo- 2008b, 2016). An implicit assumption underlying this particu- retically, “fuidity” could be defned as any form of erotic respon- lar conceptualization of sexual fuidity is that individuals who siveness which deviates from an individual’s typical confguration respond erotically to their LPG in one situation (for example, (i.e., someone attracted to children who experiences an unexpected a laboratory study) will also respond erotically to their LPG in attraction to an adult), and such forms of fuidity deserve much other situations (for example, day-to-day life). greater investigation. For the present study, however, we focus on Our second model of fuidity dispenses with this assump- variability in the gendered organization of erotic responsiveness, tion and instead defnes sexual fuidity as variability in one’s which is arguably one of the most important and distinctive, and erotic responsiveness across diferent situations. This form of our usage of the term “fuidity” should be interpreted as such. fuidity would characterize a woman who responds erotically to her LPG in the laboratory, but not in everyday life. This Operationalizing Sexual Fluidity model is consistent with a conceptualization of fuidity as a heightened sensitivity to context (Diamond, 2008a, 2008b). Previous studies have typically defned sexual fuidity as one The third model focuses on the phenomenon of discrepancies or more of the following: a capacity for erotic responsiveness between the gender patterning of one’s sexual attractions and to one’s “less-preferred” gender (abbreviated as LPG), pur- the gender patterning of one’s sexual partnering (i.e., self- suit of sexual behavior with the LPG, or change over time in identifed lesbians pursuing sex with men and self-identifed erotic responsiveness to the LPG. These diferent defnitions heterosexuals pursuing sex with women). It is important to capture diferent forms of variability in erotic responsiveness, conceptualize this type of fluidity separately from other but there is little theory or research to suggest whether they forms, given that sexual partnering is highly constrained by represent the same phenomenon. Consider, for example, two structural factors and opportunities. The last model focuses women who show sexual arousal to their less-preferred gen- on instability over time in erotic responsiveness. Importantly, der in a laboratory assessment. One of these women might our research uses short-term prospective measurement of also experience periodic sexual attractions to her LPG in the daily variation in sexual attraction, and hence, we are unable course of everyday life, whereas the other may not: Does this to assess long-term stability in erotic responsiveness over diference matter? One of them might pursue periodic sexual the scale of years (as in Dickson, Roode, Cameron, & Paul, behavior with the LPG, whereas the other might not: Does 2013; Ott, Corliss, Wypij, Rosario, & Austin, 2011; Savin- this diference matter? One may fnd that her attractions to Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012). Rather we focus on a the LPG strengthen over time, whereas the other may not: specifc type of instability that is based on dynamical systems Does this diference matter? theory: the degree to which temporal variability in erotic Currently, we do not know the answers to these questions, but responsiveness is anchored by an individual’s own setpoint. they are critically important for understanding the prevalence, This model has the advantage of presuming that all individu- mechanisms, and implications of sexual fuidity. Toward this als might show some degree of variability in erotic respon- end, we take a frst step toward answering these questions by siveness over time, but that the variability of “highly fuid” diferentiating and operationalizing diferent forms of fuidity individuals takes a diferent form, in that it is less likely to and investigating how they relate to one another and to additional revert to the original pattern after deviating from this pattern. features of women’s sexual histories and experiences. Based on Our research is uniquely able to diferentiate the four types previous research, we focus on four types of fuidity that have of fluidity described above because our multi-method study the strongest empirical and theoretical basis (although there cer- incorporates data on women’s history of sexual partnering, tainly may be others): (1) fuidity as heightened erotic respon- self-perceived identity/orientation, daily experience of sexual siveness to one’s less-preferred gender, (2) fuidity as situational attraction to the less preferred over a 2-week diary assessment, variability in erotic responsiveness to the LPG (for example, and self-reported arousal to sexual stimuli featuring the less- laboratory arousal vs. day-to-day attraction), (3) fuidity as dis- preferred gender in a laboratory assessment. Hence, we can crepancy between sexual attraction and sexual partnering with examine whether diferent types