sign in sign up
<<
Home , Daryl Bem, Donald Symons, Sexual orientation

Personal Relationships, 8 (2001), 1-19. Printed in the of America. Copyright 02001 ISSPR. 1350-4126101 $9.50

DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR ARTICLE

Rethinking women’s : An interdisciplinary, relationship-focused approach

LETITIA ANNE PEPLAU University of California, Los Angeles

Anne Peplau is a professor of social at the University of California, Los Angeles. A former President of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, Anne recently received the Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award from the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Her enduring inter- est in the many ways that influences close relationships has been pursued in numer- ous studies of friendship, dating, , and same- relationships.

Abstract What leads some women to form romantic and sexual relationships with men, and other women to form intimate relationships with women? This article presents a new conceptual paradigm for understanding women’s sexual orientation that is emerging from research in such diverse fields as , sex research, , attachment theory, and . This approach acknowledges the potential plasticity of women’s sexuality and the emphasis that women place on close relationships as a context for sexuality. Research also raises the possibility that for women the biological determinants of , attraction, and attachment are not inherently linked to a partner’s gender. This article begins with a brief survey of research on women’s same-sex romantic and sexual relationships not only in the United States today but also in other cultures and historical periods. These and other findings are used to critique prevailing conceptual models of women’s sexual orientation. Finally, key elements in an alternative paradigm are described.

An earlier version of this article was presented at the International Conference on Personal Relationships, Skidmore College, June 1998. Steven L. Gordon, Jeffry Simpson, and Shelley E. Taylor provided valuable comments on a draft of this article. Correspondence can be sent to Letitia Anne Peplau, UCLA Department of Psychology, Box 951563, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563. E-mail [email protected]. 1 2 L. A. Peplau

Why are some women and others this work emphasizes continuities, both so- heterosexual? This question is of growing cial and biological, in the factors that influ- interest to the general public and to scien- ence women’s sexuality and close relation- tific researchers. According to national ships. opinion polls (Newport, 1999), Americans are increasingly turning to for an- Describing Women’s Intimate swers. From 1977 to 1999 the proportion of Relationships With Women adults saying that is some- thing a person is “born with” increased Good science begins with an adequate de- from 13% to 34%. Among academics, an- scription of the phenomena under examina- swers to this question often depend on a tion. Too often, researchers interested in scholar’s theoretical commitments and po- sexual orientation have limited their analy- sition in the debate between biological es- ses to the experiences of a very atypical sentialism and (De- population of women, namely contempo- Lamater & Hyde, 1998). rary Americans. Fortunately, a growing In this article I strive to take a fresh look body of research by anthropologists, histori- at the topic of women’s sexual orientation. ans, and others offers a broader perspective Previous analyses have been limited in two on women’s romantic and sexual relations important ways. First, researchers have de- with women. As anthropologist Walter Wil- pended primarily on the experiences of liams recently observed (1998, p. 59,“What contemporary Americans in describing the is most notable from the emerging cross- phenomena of sexual orientation. Second, cultural scholarship is how common same- scholars have focused on types of sex relationships are for many societies.” women-those who are identified as het- This section offers a brief overview of major erosexual, lesbian, or bisexual-rather than findings. on the types of relationships that women pursue. In contrast, an analysis that focuses Exclusive relationships between on women’s intimate relationships and women draws on relevant findings from such di- In the modern American context, many verse fields as anthropology, , and women who identify as lesbian are in a neuroscience can provide much greater un- long-term, monogamous relationship with a derstanding. partner (Peplau & Spalding, 2000). This article begins with a brief survey of Yet in historical and cross-cultural perspec- research describing women’s romantic and tive, such exclusive same-sex ties are atypi- sexual relations with women across time cal. Only under certain social and economic and place. Next, I evaluate the leading para- conditions has it been possible for women digm guiding most theoretical analyses of to forsake marriage and to form relation- sexual orientation. This approach ships exclusively with women. Important emphasizes differences between heterosex- prerequisites include women’s financial in- ual women, who are viewed as feminine in dependence and the existence of suppor- their core attributes, and lesbian women, tive ideologies and institutions. who are viewed as masculine. Considerable In nineteenth-century China, research demonstrates that this model fails were arranged and often oppressive to to provide a general framework for under- women (Blackwood, 2000). A new bride standing women’s sexual orientation. In a went to live with her husband’s family and final section, I outline a new interdiscipli- was supervised by her mother-in-. In nary, relationship-focused paradigm that is Guandon province, marriage was especially gradually emerging from recent empirical frightening to women because it meant research. Rather than looking for what is moving from their own village into enemy atypical or deviant about women who form territory. Beginning in the mid-l800s, the intimate relationships with other women, establishment of silk factories permitted Women’s sexual orientation 3 thousands of young women to avoid mar- has probably been the passionate friend- riage and gain financial self-sufficiency as ships formed among adolescent girls. For silk workers (Blackwood, 2000; Sankar, example, in a region of southern Africa it 1986). These women formed social institu- was common for adolescent schoolgirls to tions known as “sisterhoods.” They lived in engage in a form of institutionalized friend- cooperative houses and provided mutual ship known as “mummy-baby relations” aid. Some women took formal vows never (, 1986). In this arrangement, an older to marry. Loving partnerships and sexual girl (the “mummy” or mother) formed an relations between women were apparently emotionally close relationship with a common and accepted until 1949, when the younger girl (the “baby”). The girls ex- Communist government banned these sis- changed love letters, and the older girl pro- terhoods. vided gifts and advice about becoming a In nineteenth-century America, a pat- woman. The most important aspect of tern of long-term, monogamous relation- mummy-baby friendship was the expres- ships between two women, known as “BOS- sion of affection and intimacy. These rela- ton marriages,” flourished in New England tionships sometimes but not always had a (Faderman, 1981). These women were typi- genital sex component. The mummy-baby cally well-educated, feminist, and finan- relationship allowed teen-age girls to learn cially independent, either through inheri- about their developing sexuality without tance or a career. The partners in a Boston of and in a context con- marriage often lived together for many doned by parents and teachers. Although years. How frequently these loving relation- the intensity of these friendships usually ships included genital sex is uncertain. At ended when one of the women married, the the end of the nineteenth century and into friendships themselves often continued and the twentieth, these strengthened both economic and emotional were quite common in academic settings, networks within the community. where women professors could not marry a Passionate friendships were also com- and retain their faculty position. The mon among girls at European boarding 30-year relationship between Mary Wool- schools during the early twentieth century. ley, president of Mt. Holyoke College, and (1928) reported that in Italy Jeannette Marks, chair of the English De- and England, a majority of schoolgirls had partment, was illustrative. intense friendships known as “flames” or Throughout the twentieth century, the “raves.” During the same time period, advances made by American women in American researcher Katherine Davis education and paid employment expanded (1929) mailed a questionnaire about sexu- the opportunities for women to lead lives ality to 2,200 graduates of women’s colleges independent of men. Both feminism and in the United States. The questionnaire the movements for gayllesbian rights have asked, “Have you at any time experienced provided ideologies and communities sup- intense emotional relations with other portive of same-sex relationships and fami- women?” Fully 42% of the sample replied lies. There is increasing social pressure for that they had. Of these, 52% said that the government and social institutions to rec- relationship was sexual in character. In ognize the rights of same-sex couples and to other words, one woman in five reported a endorse same-sex marriage. Today, self- sexual relationship with a best woman identified lesbian couples are an increas- friend in college. Some of these women ingly visible part of the social landscape. continued to have intimate relationships with women after college but most did not. Passionate friendships have also been Adolescent passionate friendships documented among contemporary Ameri- In global perspective, the most frequent can adolescent women. Studies by Lisa Dia- type of romantic liaison between women mond and her colleagues depict modern- 4 L. A. Peplau

day passionate friends as usually pre- the social institution known as mati. Mati occupied with each other, sometimes in- are women who engage in sexual relation- separable, and often voicing a serious com- ships with men and with women, either si- mitment to their relationship (Diamond, multaneously or consecutively (Wekker, 2000a; Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dube, 1999). This socially accepted arrangement 1999). These relationships provide a sense is made possible by the fact that most Cre- of being valued and needed, and they offer ole women own or rent their own homes intimacy, stability, and trust. These passion- and are single heads of household. ate friendships may involve considerable lovers provide not only sexual companion- and touching, but all be- ship but also reciprocal aid in raising chil- gin as nonsexual and only a minority even- dren, financial assistance, and support in tually become fully sexual. coping with everyday concerns. Patterns of socially recognized “bond friendship” were also reported among the Azande in Africa Adult relationships with both male and (e.g., Blackwood, 2000). These friendships female partners were both economic and social in nature, In many cultures, marriage and mother- involving the exchange of goods and serv- hood are prerequisites for full adult status ices but also emotional and sometimes and social respectability. Consequently, erotic ties between women. women’s adult same-sex relationships have In the eighteenth and nineteenth centu- probably most often coexisted with male- ries, many adult American and European female relationships. women formed intense romantic friend- In rural Lesotho in Africa, prior to West- ships with other women, often celebrating ern influences, it was common for married these passionate relationships in letters and women to have a special, long-term female poetry (Faderman, 1981). “Ah, how I love friend or motsoalle (Kendall, 1999). These you,” President Grover Cleveland’s mar- loving sexual relationships were celebrated ried sister Rose wrote to her friend Evan- with a ritual feast in which the entire com- geline in 1890. “All my whole being leans munity acknowledged the commitment that out to you. . . . I dare not think of your the two women were making to each other. arms” (cited in Goode, 1999, p. 33). After In an account of her personal experiences, a Rose’s husband died, the two women spent woman named Nthunya (1997) noted that their last years living together in Italy. At both her husband and her motsoalle’s hus- the time, society considered these enduring band were supportive of their friendship. intimate relationships to be acceptable and This tradition continues today in more in- normal. We do not know how often these formal relationships between women that relationships involved explicit sexuality. As frequently involve passionate kissing, oral Lillian Faderman explained (1981, p. 80), “it sex, and other activities Americans would is probable that many romantic friends, define as erotic. Interestingly, the women of while totally open in expressing and dem- Lesotho do not consider these friendships onstrating emotional and spiritual love, to be sexual relationships, explaining that repressed any sexual inclinations . . . you cannot have sex unless someone has a since . . . women were taught from child- penis. “No [penis], no sex means that hood that only men or bad women were women’s ways of expressing love, lust, pas- sexually aggressive . . . . [Consequently] sion, or joy in each other are neither im- even a puritanical society had little concern moral nor suspect” (Kendall, 1999,~.167). A about allowing them fairly unlimited access narrow cultural definition of sex permitted to each other.” considerable latitude for women’s intimate In America today, it is unusual for an behavior with each other. adult woman to have openly loving and sex- In Suriname, in South America, many ual relationships with both men and women working-class Creole women participate in at the same time. Nonetheless, most women Women’ssexual orientation 5

who currently identify as lesbian or bisex- her . In K. B. Davis’s (1929) ual have had sexual relationships with men. study of women at single-sex colleges, most For example, a recent study of 6,935 self- of the women who had emotional and sex- identified from all 50 states found ual relationships with women in college that 77% of lesbians had had one or more formed relationships with men after gradu- male sexual partners during their lifetime, ation. often in the recent past (Diamant, Schuster, Changes such as these can occur McGuigan, & Lever, 1999). We know rela- throughout one’s life span. Several studies tively little about women who identify have described the experiences of Ameri- either privately or publicly as bisexual (e.g., can women who, after a long-term hetero- Blumstein & Schwartz, 1976; Rust, 2000; sexual relationship or marriage, began an Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). For with a woman (e.g., some women, the bisexual label describes a Blumstein & Schwartz, 1976; Kitzinger & history of sequential or concurrent rela- Wilkinson, 1995). The reverse pattern also tionships with male and female partners. occurs: women who have identified as lesbi- For others, the label indicates that a person ans for many years and formed relation- has feelings of attraction to both men and ships only with women may begin a roman- women. tic or sexual relationship with a man (e.g., Having briefly reviewed the major forms Bart, 1993). that women’s same-sex relationships have The social context can influence a taken historically and cross-culturally, I woman’s choice of a female versus male now consider three other characteristics of partner. The frequency of passionate women’s same-sex romantic and sexual re- friendships among girls and women in sex- lationships that will be important in assess- segregated schools provides one example. ing the adequacy of theories of sexual ori- So do the experiences of women in Ameri- entation. can prisons (e.g., Giallombardo, 1966). It is fairly common for women inmates to create Within-person variability across time and family-like relationships, sometimes includ- ing a sexual relationship. In the subculture social setting of women’s prison, a distinction is often Although some may think of sexual orien- drawn between “real” lesbians and “jail- tation as determined early in life and rela- house turnouts,” women who were hetero- tively unchanging from then on, growing sexual prior to incarceration but form a re- evidence indicates that the nature of a lationship with a woman while in prison. woman’s intimate relationships can change Paula Rust (2000, p. 210) has noted that throughout her life and differ across social “the reasons turnouts engage in sex with settings. Several examples highlight this other women in prison-the search for fa- point. miliar family-type relationships, a sense of In their interviews with lesbian, bisexual, identity and self worth, affection, and con- and questioning adolescent women, Lisa nection to others-are similar to the rea- Diamond and Ritch Savin-Williams (2000) sons women engage in heterosexual activi- have found much evidence of discontinuity ties outside of prison.” and change in young women’s behavior The occupation of stripping can also fos- over time. In one study (Diamond, 2000b), ter same-sex relationships, especially when a quarter of the women who identified as women are part of a touring group that lesbian at a first interview had pursued a moves from city to city. One study found sexual relationship with a man by the time that about half of the women interviewed of the second interview 2 years later. In had developed a sexual liaison with another some cases, this led to a change in identity; woman, often someone in the same touring in other cases, it. was interpreted by the group (McCaghy & Skipper, 1969). The re- woman as “an exception” that did not affect searchers suggested that loneliness and iso- 6 L. A. Peplau

lation from previous social ties, unsatisfac- Lesotho women who formed a committed tory contacts with male clients, and a per- motsoalle friendship with another woman missive social environment contributed to did not change their identity, nor did the the creation of same-sex ties. schoolgirls in a mummy-baby friendship. These research examples show that the Furthermore, research has repeatedly lives of at least some women are charac- found that in America today the links terized by temporal changes and disconti- among behavior, attraction, and personal nuities in the choice of male versus female identity are often complex. To be sure, some partners. An adequate analysis of women’s women are entirely consistent in their at- sexual orientation must be able to account tractions, behavior, and identity, but others for these within-person changes. are not. The loose associations among these elements that emerged in the National Health and Social Life Survey led Lau- Same-sex relationships and personal mann et al. (1994, pp. 285-286) to suggest identity that “it makes more sense to ask about spe- Recent research also provides useful infor- cific aspects of same-gender behavior, prac- mation about the links between women’s tice, and feelings during specific periods of same-sex relationships and their identity. In an individual’s life rather than a single yes- Western society, an individual’s sense of per- or-no question about whether a person is sonal identity as a lesbian, a bisexual, or a homosexual.” heterosexual is often assumed to be a core In short, the connection between having element of sexual orientation. Indeed, scien- an intimate same-sex relationship and one’s tific studies of sexual orientation typically personal or social identity is variable, not classify participants on the basis of their self- fixed. The sexual identities found in the reported identity. The process of recogniz- United States today are not universal, nor ing and coming to terms with one’s sexual are they unchanging. The emergence of “bi- identity (“”) has been a promi- sexual” and “” as American social nent focus of research and counseling. identities is a recent social phenomenon. Yet in historical and cultural perspective, One implication is that self-reported sexual same-sex attractions and relationships are identity is not necessarily the best starting not inevitably linked to identity. The ro- point for a comprehensive analysis of mantic friendships between American women’s sexual orientation. women in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had no implications for a and in same-sex woman’s identity (Faderman, 1981). As the couples twentieth century unfolded, however, sexologists formulated the concept of “les- Finally, a description of empirical findings bian,” Freud suggested that sexual motiva- about women’s same-sex relationships tion is ubiquitous, and as a result the once would be incomplete without a considera- respectable institution of women’s roman- tion of masculine and feminine roles. tic friendships became suspect. Historians American often depict same- contend that the creation of “homosexual” sex couples as involving a masculine part- and “heterosexual” as defining identities or ner and a feminine partner who enact roles types of people is a relatively recent devel- patterned after a traditional husband and opment (e.g., Katz, 1995). wife. Cross-cultural and historical evidence Anthropologists also describes cultures clearly challenges this , and in which women’s same-sex relationships shows that the links between women’s sex- are unrelated to their personal or social ual orientation and masculinity/femininity identity. The women who participate in the are highly variable. mati pattern in Suriname do not acquire a In some settings, same-sex relationships special identity-they are just women. The are built on prevailing models of femininity. WomenS sexual orientation 7

The American women who formed roman- In summary, a growing body of research tic friendships in the eighteenth and nine- documents the existence of romantic and teenth centuries viewed their relationships sexual relationships between women in di- as reflecting womanly ideals of purity, love, verse cultures and historical periods. Pas- and devotion (Faderman, 1981). Similarly, sionate friendships between teen-age girls the mummy-baby pattern described earlier appear to be common, especially when ado- was also based on a feminine model, in this lescents grow up in sex-segregated environ- case the nurturant bond between mother ments. The pattern of exclusive same-sex and child. relationships and lifestyles found in Amer- In other contexts, women’s same-sex re- ica today is atypical in a global perspective. lationships have been based on a distinction More often, adult women’s intimate same- between a “masculine” and “feminine” sex friendships have coexisted with rela- partner. In America in the 1950s, an urban tionships with men. The nature of a working-class lesbian subculture empha- woman’s romantic attractions and sexual sized that lesbian couples should have a relationships can change during her life- “butch” and a “” partner (e.g., Davis time. In our culture, women’s choice of a & Kennedy, 1989). Among the Kaska Indi- male or female partner is often a defining ans of Canada, parents depended on a son to element in her personal and social identity. hunt big game to provide food for the family. In other cultures and time periods, how- However, families without a son were per- ever, this has not been the case. Even in mitted by social custom to designate one of modern society, inconsistencies often exist their daughters to be raised as a son. As an among a woman’s attractions, behavior, and adult, she was expected to take a wife, for it identity. Finally, there is great variation in was believed that a female hunter who had whether or not concepts of masculinity and sex with a man would have bad luck with femininity are relevant to the patterning of game (Williams, 1998). Among the Mojave women’s same-sex relationships. Indians in North America, it was acceptable for a woman to chose to live as a man and to The Inversion Model of Women’s Sexual marry a woman, as long as she adequately Orientation performed the traditional male social role. The wife, a traditionally feminine Mojave Having summarized major empirical find- woman, was not considered homosexual or ings about women’s relationships with cross-gendered herself (Blackwood, 1984,p. women, I now evaluate the leading para- 35). In contemporary Sumatra, the term digm that has guided most theoretical tomboi (from the English word “”) analyses of women’s sexual orientation for describes women who act in the manner of the past century. This is the inversion model men and are erotically attracted to feminine of sexual orientation, articulated in the women (Blackwood,2000).The female part- writings of Krafft-Ebing (1908/1950), Hav- ner of a tomboi has no special label; she is elock Ellis (1928), and other early sex ex- simply considered a woman. perts. This model proposed that sexual ori- In still other social environments, entation is closely tied to gender. Normal women’s relationships with women are heterosexual women are feminine in their based on neither feminine nor masculine physiology, personality, and attractions to models but rather on friendship. The exam- men. In contrast, lesbians are “sexual in- ples of the mati and the motsoalle friend- verts,” that is, women who are masculine in ships described earlier are illustrative. aspects of their physiology, personality, and Taken together, research finds that the links attraction to women. This model and its among masculinity, femininity, and various modern successors have dominated women’s sexual orientation are variable scientific efforts to understand sexual ori- rather than constant across cultures and entation. A brief review of unsuccessful ef- historical periods. forts to confirm this model will make clear 8 L. A. Peplau

the need for a paradigm shift in the field. natal environments due to genetic (For a detailed discussion, see Peplau, anomalies or because of medication given Spalding, Conley, & Veniegas, 1999; to their mother during pregnancy. This re- Veniegas & Conley, 2000). search indicates that prenatal do have modest masculinizing effects on some aspects of women’s behavior, including Biological studies of the inversion their childhood play preferences and self- hypothesis reports of sex-typed behavior in adulthood Inversion theory asserts that heterosexual- (e.g., Collaer & Hines, 1995; Udry, 2000). ity is the biological norm and homosexual- However, the impact of prenatal hormones ity results from a biological anomaly or de- on adult sexual orientation is minimal. The fect. Compared to heterosexual women, great majority of women known to have lesbians are masculinized in some aspect of been exposed to masculinizing hormones their anatomy or physiology. Early studies report being heterosexual (e.g., Meyer- investigated possible anatomical correlates Bahlburg et al., 1995; Zucker et al., 1996). of women’s sexual orientation, ranging Many supporters of the neuroendocrine from menstrual difficulties to atypical pel- model now recognize that it does not pro- vic structures and clitoral development-all vide a general explanation for variations in without success (e.g., A. Ellis, 1963). Later it women’s sexual orientation (e.g., Meyer- was suggested that sexual orientation might Bahlburg, 1995, p. 147). be affected by the circulating levels of tes- has observed that “the main bone of con- tosterone, estrogen, or other sex hormones tention is whether variations in the prenatal in adults. Eventually, this line of work was hormonal milieu have any effect at all” on also abandoned for lack of evidence (e.g., sexual orientation (Zucker, Bradley, & Byne, 1995). Lowry Sullivan, 1992, p. 93). Currently, the most influential theory de- rived from the inversion paradigm focuses Childhood gender nonconformity and the on the impact of prenatal hormones. As inversion hypothesis summarized by Ellis and Ames (1987, p. 248), this neuroendocrine theory states that Another theory of sexual orientation based “if a female fetus is exposed to high levels on the inversion hypothesis emphasizes of in the latter half of gesta- gender nonconformity in childhood. Do tion, her brain will function as a male brain. girls who enjoy traditionally masculine ac- Following puberty, one manifestation of tivities and play with boys-so-called tom- this male brain functioning will be a prefer- boys-grow up to become lesbians? Ac- ence for female sex partners.” In other cording to ’s (1996) “Exotic words, exposure to particular prenatal hor- Becomes Erotic” theory of sexual orienta- mones during a critical period before birth tion, the answer is yes. Empirical support masculinizes the development of brain for this hypothesis about girls is weak (see structures, which in turn influence sexual reviews in Peplau et al., 1998, 1999). For orientation (see detailed reviews by Bailey, example, if tomboyism is a precursor to les- 1995; Byne, 1995; Meyer-Bahlburg, 1995; bianism, which characterizes no more than Peplau et al., 1999). 3% of adult women in the United States Although the prenatal hormone model (Laumann et al., 1994), we might expect seems to work reasonably well in studies of tomboys to be rare. In fact, approximately laboratory animals where mounting and half of American girls and women report lordosis are the behaviors under investiga- being or having been tomboys (e.g., Burn, tion, it has not proved to be a general model O’Neil, & Nederend, 1996; Plumb & of sexual orientation in women. The strong- Cowan, 1984). A meta-analysis of studies est evidence for the theory comes from comparing the remembered childhood ex- studies of women exposed to atypical pre- periences of adult lesbian and heterosexual Women’s sexual orientation 9

women found significantly higher reports rated masculinity, femininity, or gender of tomboyism among lesbians (d = .96; atypicality of interests in occupations, ac- Bailey & Zucker, 1995). However, these tivities, or hobbies. studies are all based on retrospective ac- In summary, there is little evidence that counts that may be biased by current expe- masculinity provides the key to under- riences. Lesbians may be prone to exagger- standing women’s sexual orientation. Cross- ate their childhood gender atypicality, in cultural and historical research helps to ex- line with stereotypes of lesbians as mascu- plain why the inversion paradigm is of such line. Furthermore, the overwhelming ma- limited usefulness. In broad perspective, the jority of tomboys become heterosexual association between sexual orientation and adults, including tomboys with extreme attributes associated with masculinity or scores on measures of gender noncon- femininity varies by culture and setting. In formity. Tomboyism does not provide an modern-day Sumatra, tombois are likely to adequate explanation for the development rate themselves high on masculine qualities, of sexual orientation in most women. as might the American “butch” lesbians studied in the 1950s. Their female partners would likely score high on femininity. The Personality studies of the inversion Mojave Indian girl who chose to live her life hypothesis as a male and the Kaska Indian girl whose Inversion theorists believed that lesbians parents selected her to be their “son” may have masculine personalities including well have been youthful tomboys who en- such qualities as assertiveness and inde- joyed masculine pursuits. In contrast, the pendence that are traditionally associated personal attributes of women involved in with men. In contrast, heterosexual women long-term same-sex romantic friendships, of were thought to have feminine personal at- girls involved in passionate adolescent tributes. Fourteen published studies have friendships, and of young women who es- compared lesbian and heterosexual women caped marital oppression by joining a silk using standardized masculinity-femininity factory sisterhood were probably indistin- measures. A recent meta-analysis found no guishable from their female peers. Gender significant differences between lesbian and atypicality does not provide a general heterosexual women on measures of psy- framework for understanding the varied chological femininity or (re- forms of intimacy between women across ported in Peplau et al., 1999). On average, time and place. Indeed, those who persist in however, lesbians did score somewhat pursuing inversion-based hypotheses about higher than did heterosexual women on women’s sexual orientation would benefit measures of masculinity. Lesbians rated from specifying with some precision the spe- themselves higher on such attributes as cific population of women for whom their self-confidence and assertiveness, although model may be relevant. the size of this difference (d = .39) was modest. An Emerging New Paradigm In another comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual women, Lippa and Arad Inversion theorists focus on how lesbians (1997) used self-ratings of masculinity and differ from heterosexual women. In con- femininity but also developed additional trast, an emerging new paradigm asks a fun- measures of gender typicality based on a damentally different question: What is the person’s interest in gender-associated occu- nature of women’s sexuality and how does pations (e.g., physician, elementary school it influence their intimate relationships? teacher), activities (e.g., cooking, car re- Core elements of the new paradigm, to be pair), and hobbies (e.g., dancing, home elec- discussed below, are a recognition of the tronics). They found that women’s sexual plasticity of female sexuality and the cen- attraction to women was not related to self- trality of pair bonds to women’s sexual ori- 10 L. A. Peplau entation (Peplau & Garnets,2000). The new there is little reason to expect change based paradigm crosses interdisciplinary bounda- on the sexual plasticity hypothesis. The key ries, drawing on cross-cultural and histori- point is that at least some women are capa- cal research as well as advances in such di- ble of variation and change, and this plastic- verse areas as evolutionary psychology, ity appears to be more characteristic of attachment theory, and neuroscience. women than of men. A second prediction is that if women’s sexuality is plastic and malleable, then it Erotic plasticity in women can be shaped by a range of social and situ- Scholars from many disciplines have long ational influences. Baumeister documented noted that women’s sexuality tends to be that in America such factors as education, fluid, malleable, and capable of change over religion, and acculturation have greater im- time. In a recent review, Roy Baumeister pact on aspects of women’s sexuality than (2000) provided persuasive evidence that on men’s. Education provides a striking il- erotic plasticity is more characteristic of lustration. Completing college doubles the women than of men. Baumeister defined likelihood that a man identifies as gay or plasticity as the degree to which a person’s bisexual, but is associated with a 900 per- sex drive can be shaped and altered by cul- cent increase in the percentage of women tural, social, and situational pressures. identifying as lesbian/bisexual (from 0.4% Baumeister considered three predictions of women high school graduates to 3.6% of concerning the fluidity of female sexuality. college graduates; Laumann et al., 1994, p. First, some degree of erotic plasticity 305). Also consistent with the plasticity hy- would make it possible for a woman to have pothesis is evidence that active involve- nonexclusive attractions toward both ment in the 1970s feminist movement led women and men. In addition, plasticity some women to turn away from sexual re- would permit a woman to change aspects of lations with men and to establish relation- her sexuality or sexual orientation across ships with women (e.g., Kitzinger, 1987). the life span. Considerable evidence shows Pearlman (1987) explained that “many of that such within-person changes do occur. the new, previously heterosexual, radical For example, we have already seen that lesbians had based their choice as much on American women who are not exclusively politics as on sexual interest in other heterosexual are more likely to be bisexual women” (p. 318). rather than exclusively homosexual in their A third prediction concerns -be- attractions and relationships. At least some havior consistency: “If women’s behavior is women describe major changes in their in- more malleable by situational forces than timate relationships-for example, leaving men’s, then women will be more likely than a long-term heterosexual marriage for a re- men to do things contrary to their general lationship with a woman or vice versa. Simi- attitudes” (Baumeister, 2000, p. 359). Con- lar patterns have been described in other cerning sexual orientation, the plasticity hy- cultures. When cultural institutions permit pothesis would predict that sexual desires, married women to maintain a long-term behavior, and identity are not invariably in- loving relationship with another woman, terconnected. To be sure, many individuals such romantic and sexual friendships are do report complete consistency: A woman common. might identify as lesbian, be attracted ex- The potential erotic plasticity of women clusively to women, and have sex with does not mean that most women will actu- women partners only. But as we saw earlier, ally exhibit change over time. At a young exceptions to this pattern of consistency are age, many women adopt patterns of inti- common. A woman may have strong attrac- mate relating that are stable across their tions to both men and women but not iden- lifetime. To the extent that the social influ- tify as bisexual. A heterosexual woman may ences acting on a woman remain constant, employ homoerotic fantasies when having Women’ssexual orientation 11

sex with her male partner. Inconsistencies erotic plasticity. A striking difference be- such aS these are frequently noted in the tween and other animals is the research literature (e.g., Diamond & Savin- decoupling of female hormones and sexual Williams, 2000; Rothblum, 2000). behavior. Although female sexual motiva- Research on the evolution of female tion or desire does vary to some extent with sexuality provides further support for the hormonal fluctuations during the erotic plasticity hypothesis. In his landmark ovarian cycle, actual sexual behavior does book on the evolution of , not. Female primates are able to become Donald Symons (1979, p. 311) noted that sexually aroused and to engage in sex “female sexuality seems to be generally less throughout their cycle. One consequence is rigidly channeled than male sexuality.” that “sexual behavior in primates can, and Based on evolutionary theory, Symons ar- does, occur in a wide variety of contexts, gued that male and female sexuality are most of which have little to do with repro- fundamentally different and, further, that duction” (Wallen, 1995, p. 63). Perhaps the the relationships of homosexuals, who do most striking examples come from the lives not need to “compromise” with a partner of of bonobo chimps, a species of sexual en- the other sex, should provide important in- thusiasts who frequently engage in sex with sights into male and female sexuality. Thus, both male and female partners so as to Symons rejected the inversion notion that avoid conflict, reduce tension, make peace, lesbians are similar to heterosexual men, or show solidarity (de Waal, 1995). and instead argued for basic commonalities Also relevant is evidence that female among all women. He supported this asser- primate sexual behavior varies as a func- tion by referring to data showing that re- tion of the social context. For example, gardless of sexual orientation, women when rhesus monkeys are housed in showed less interest than men in visual sex- male-female pairs, mating occurs through- ual stimuli and , in having a out the female’s cycle. In contrast, when variety of sexual partners, in , and rhesus monkeys live in larger social groups, in the importance of a partner’s physical mating is generally restricted to the fe- appearance. Recent research has repeat- male’s period of fertility. Wallen (1995) ex- edly confirmed this idea that patterns of plained this shift as resulting from the social sexual thoughts and behaviors are strongly structure and interaction patterns that linked to gender but not to sexual orienta- emerge in larger groups. tion. As one example, a study by Bailey and Wallen proposed that a similar distinc- colleagues (1994) compared homosexual tion between sexual desire versus sexual ca- and heterosexual men and women on seven pacity or behavior is relevant to women’s aspects of “mating psychology” including sexuality. Women’s reports of sexual desire an interest in uncommitted sex, frequency change markedly during the menstrual cy- of casual sex, and the importance of the cle (see review by Regan & Berscheid, partner’s , youth or 1999). In contrast, women’s sexual behavior status. Male-female differences were found is not strongly determined by their hor- on all seven measures. In contrast, lesbian mone levels or sexual interest. For example, and heterosexual women were indistin- a study found that women were substan- guishable on most measures. tially more likely to have Whereas the prenatal hormone theory of on Saturdays and Sundays rather than dur- sexual orientation has been informed by ing the rest of the week, indicating the im- studies of mounting and lordosis in labora- pact of work schedules rather than hor- tory rats, evolutionary analyses have often mones (Palmer, Udry, & Morris, 1982). drawn on studies of our closest relatives, More generally, people engage in sexual ac- nonhuman primates. Research by Kim Wal- tivities for a wide variety of reasons that len (1995) and others on female sexuality may have little to do with sexual desire among primates is consistent with a view of (Regan & Berscheid, 1999). This potential 12 L. A. Peplau

disjunction between hormonally based sex- comparable data for lesbians and , ual desire and actual sexual behavior may but the greater availability of opportunities be more characteristic of women than of for casual sex in gay male communities men. A review of research on adolescents (e.g., bath houses) and reports of greater and adults concluded that “hormone influ- numbers of sex partners among gay men ences on [sexual] behavior are highly pre- than lesbians suggest that gay men have dictable in men but variable in women” more permissive attitudes toward casual (Nottelmann, Inoff-Germain, Susman, & sex than do lesbians. Chrousos, 1990, p. 94). DeLamater (1987) reviewed research in- In summary, the concept of erotic plas- dicating that adolescent women and men ticity is the cornerstone of a new paradigm develop different beliefs about the types of for understanding women’s sexual orienta- persons who are appropriate sex partners tion. Women’s sexuality is not tightly and the time when sexual expression is ac- scripted by genetic or hormonal influences. ceptable. Women tend to have a relational Rather, it is responsive throughout the life orientation, in which sexuality is seen as an span to a wide variety of cognitive, social, integral part of an ongoing, emotional rela- and environmental influences. The capacity tionship. Men are more likely to have a rec- for women to relate sexually to other reational orientation toward sex, in which women is not a biological anomaly, but most women are potential sex partners and rather part of a much broader pattern in no particular emotional relationship is which sexual behavior serves diverse social needed as a prerequisite for sex. Similar and emotional functions among both pri- patterns may also characterize lesbians and mates and . gay men. In an analysis of lesbian and gay novels, Rose (1996) found that the most common story line for women was a “ro- Sexual Orientation or Relationship mance script” emphasizing emotional inti- Orientation? The Importance of Pair macy, progress toward commitment, and Bonds rather than sexual activity. A new analytic paradigm for women’s sex- In contrast, the most common story line for ual orientation must deal directly with the gay men was an “adventure script” empha- importance that women so often give to sizing the physical attractiveness of the love and intimate relationships as a context partner, surmounting obstacles to love, and for sexuality. Gender differences in sexual- ambivalence about emotional intimacy. An- ity have been widely documented (e.g., other study asked lesbians and gay men to Sprecher & McKinney, 1993) and appear to describe an actual recent apply regardless of sexual orientation. We (Klinkenberg & Rose, 1994). The lesbian begin by briefly summarizing research dating scripts were more intimacy focused showing that, in general, women have a re- and less sexually oriented than were those lational or partner-centered orientation to of gay men. sexuality and men a recreational or body- In a study asking young heterosexual centered orientation (e.g., Baldwin & Bald- adults to define sexual desire, Regan and win, 1997;DeLamater, 1987). It is likely that Berscheid (1996) concluded that men were these general patterns apply to gay men, more likely to “sexualize” and women to lesbians, and bisexuals as well as to hetero- “romanticize” the experience of sexual de- sexuals, although available research on ho- sire. One young man equated sexual desire mosexuals is limited. with uninhibited sexual intercourse; a On average, women hold less permissive young woman explained that it was “a long- attitudes than do men toward casual sex ing to be emotionally intimate and to ex- without a , and the press love to another person” (Regan & size of this sex difference is fairly large Berscheid, 1999, p. 75). Similarly, based on (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). We do not have their study of bisexuals, Weinberg, Williams, WomenS sexual orientation 13

and Pryor (1994, p.7) concluded: “For men women’s intimate relationships with it was easier to have sex with other men women are only partly about sexuality and than to fall in love with them. For women it often primarily about love, companionship, was easier to fall in love with other women and mutual assistance. The same might be than to have sex with them.” Men and said of women’s relationships with men. To women also differ in their reasons for hav- be sure, sex and erotic pleasure can be an ing sex. In samples of married and dating important ingredient in intimate relation- heterosexuals, women said they desired in- ships, but sex is not necessarily their defin- timacy from their sexual encounter; they ing attribute. Nor, as feminist scholars have viewed the goal of sex as expressing affec- long argued, is sexual behavior necessarily tion to another person in a committed rela- the essential element in a woman’s sexual tionship (Hatfield et al., 1989). In contrast, orientation (e.g., Stearns, 1995). Research- men wanted sexual variety and partner in- ers’ tendency to accord greater weight to itiative; they emphasized physical gratifica- sex acts than to enduring relationships may tion as the goal of sex. In a study of lesbians be an unintended legacy of male-centered and gay men, similar differences were thinking. Indeed, if we were to conceptual- found (Leigh, 1989). ize sexual orientation on the basis of In a review of research on gender differ- women’s experiences, we might well re- ences in sexual fantasies, Ellis and Symons name it “relationship orientation.” An ade- (1990) found that women’s fantasies were quate understanding of women’s sexual ori- more likely to include a familiar partner, to entation will require a shift away from include affection and commitment, and to focusing on sexual behavior toward study- describe the setting for the sexual encoun- ing the formation of close pair bonds. ter. In contrast, men’s fantasies were more likely to involve strangers, anonymous part- New perspectives from attachment theory ners, or multiple partners and to focus on and neuroscience specific sex acts andlor sexual organs. In summary, for many women, sexuality Recent work on adult attachment provides is closely linked to intimate relationships. further insights into women’s relationships An important goal of sex is intimacy; the with women. There is now considerable evi- best context for pleasurable sex is an ongo- dence that our most intimate adult relation- ing relationship. Although the cross-cul- ships involve processes of attachment simi- tural and historical record is far from com- lar, in many respects, to those that develop plete, this focus on love and intimacy seems between infants and their caretakers. In a to be quite widespread. An African woman new analysis of attachment in human mat- commented on the emotional quality of her ing, Hazan and Diamond (2000) argued special motsoalle friendship: “When a man that the attachment system, which initially chooses you for a wife, it’s because he wants evolved to ensure infant survival, was later to share the blankets with you. . . . When a co-opted to keep adult mates together over woman loves another woman, . . . she can time and so promote the survival of their love her with a whole heart” (Nthunya, offspring. In their analysis, the development 1997, p. 69). One of the Victorian “sexual of romantic relationships is seen as involv- inverts” interviewed by Havelock Ellis ing two distinct processes-infatuation and (1928) rejected explicit sex in her relations attachment. Initially, a process of infatu- with women, considering that it would have ation or passionate love, often fueled by been a “sacrilege.” She prided herself on sexual desire, brings two people together. suppressing sexual urges toward a loved Infatuation leads to such behaviors as partner. physical intimacy and spending time to- One implication of this research is that gether, which eventually produce attach- the very concept of “sexual orientation” ment. Hazan and Diamond rejected the may be misguided. The phenomena of idea that individuals have specific gender- 14 L. A. Peplau based images of a suitable partner and sug- even sexual desire. Similarly, the nine- gested instead that the “search image for teenth-century women in same-sex Boston human mating is . . . inherently flexible” (p. marriages created enduring attachment 195). Just as infants can form attachments bonds that may have included initial infatu- to a wide range of potential caretakers, so ation but were not necessarily based on sex- too adults can become infatuated and bond ual desire. with a range of partners. Proximity and fa- This perspective also helps to explain miliarity typically constrain the pool of variations in the typical sequencing of sex- available partners, probably to an even ual desire, infatuation/attraction, and at- greater extent in our evolutionary past than tachment in the development of romantic today. Within the pool of available partners, relationships. A common heterosexual se- infatuation is triggered by finding someone quence may be for initial sexual desire to who is responsive, competent, and indicates motivate the search for a partner leading to that one’s budding liking is reciprocated. infatuation and eventually to attachment. A somewhat similar analysis is provided But the independence of these systems by Helen Fisher (1998),who emphasized the makes it possible for other sequences to possible neuroendocrine underpinnings for occur. Consider the passionate same-sex adult romantic relationships. Fisher distin- friendships described among adolescent guished among three major emotional sys- girls (e.g., Diamond, 2000a). Initially, these tems that guide mammalian mating. The sex relationships are not usually sparked by drive, associated primarily with estrogen sexual desire but rather by platonic infatu- and , motivates individuals to ation. From an attachment perspective, this seek sex with other members of their species sequence seems quite plausible. During but does not focus on a particular partner. , teens shift their attachments Attraction, also called infatuation or pas- from parents to peers, so this is a time of sionate love in humans, is characterized by relational instability that may motivate a focused attention on a specific partner, in- search for an attachment figure. Passionate creased energy and, in humans, with feelings friendships are particularly likely to de- of exhilaration and preoccupation. Re- velop in single-sex settings that constrain search links this system with the catecho- the pool of available partners or in situ- lamines (e.g., dopamine and norepin- ations where close female friendships are ephrine) and also with serotonin and institutionally sanctioned. Further, social phenylethylamine. The third system is at- transitions occurring in adolescence includ- tachment, characterized by close social con- ing the demands of school and the loneli- tact and, in humans, by feelings of calm,com- ness of living away from home are often fort, and emotional bonding. There is stressful. There is growing evidence that fe- considerable evidence that attachment is as- males are more likely than males to re- sociated with oxytocin and vasopressin. spond to stress by affiliating with others, Fisher proposed that in the course of hu- specifically with other (Taylor et man evolution, the neural correlates of sex- al., 2000). Finally, if the process of infatu- ual desire, attraction, and attachment be- ation is a legacy of the infant’s intense fas- came increasingly independent of one cination with a caretaker, then there is no another. The result is that “mating flexibil- reason to assume that a partner’s gender is ity is a hallmark of Homo sapiens” (p. 41). relevant to triggering infatuation or estab- The relative independence of sexual desire, lishing an attachment bond. passionate love, and attachment helps to Although sexual desire, infatuatiodat- make sense of relationships that lack one or traction, and attachment are distinct proc- more of these elements. Fisher (1998) noted esses, they are not entirely unrelated. Neu- that in arranged marriages, heterosexual roscience offers hints about their possible partners develop attachment bonds that are interconnections. Although data are still in- not necessarily linked to infatuation or complete and rely more heavily on studies Women’s sexual orientation 15

of nonhuman mammals than of people, Savin-Williams,2000). The comparable fig- oxytocin seems to play a uniquely impor- ure for young men was only 5%. Central to tant role in women’s lives (Panksepp, 1998). understanding this phenomenon may be Research suggests that oxytocin influences the fact that in a woman’s closest female a range of behaviors in females. Oxytocin is friendship, attachment and caregiving be- implicated in maternal behavior and haviors are common and often considered caregiving. It has been linked to affiliation socially acceptable. These may include and may be important to adult pair bonds physical touching, spending time together, (Carter, 1998). In females, environmental nurturant acts, and supportive conversa- stress can increase oxytocin levels, which in tion. One possibility is that these behaviors turn lead to nurturing behavior and in- activate oxytocin circuits and so foster feel- creased tendencies toward affiliation, per- ings of . haps especially with females (Taylor et al., In the future, our understanding of 2000). Touch, massage, and other types of women’s romantic and sexual relationships positive physical contact can trigger the re- will benefit from advances in knowledge lease of oxytocin (e.g., Uvnas-Moberg, about attachment processes and the 1998). Finally, oxytocin levels increase with neuroendocrine underpinnings of social be- sexual excitement and . In short, havior. oxytocin may provide one mechanism that links attachment, caregiving, and sexuality Gender and sexual in females. orientation Neuroendocrine differences between A hundred years ago, inversion theorists men and women may contribute to suggested that the key to understanding women’s greater relational orientation to- women’s sexual orientation would be to ward sexuality (Andersen, Cyranowski, & identify differences between the masculine Aarestad, 2000; Panksepp, 1998). Females features of lesbian women and the feminine have more extensive oxytocin circuits in features of heterosexual women. Today, the their brain than do males. Whereas andro- cumulative research record clearly points in gens antagonize the effects of oxytocin, es- a different direction, documenting that re- trogen enhances them, which may be one gardless of sexual orientation, there are im- reason why women and men differ in the portant commonalities among women and effects of oxytocin. Further, in females, the differences between women and men. neurocircuitries for sexuality and nurtur- Among these commonalities are the poten- ance are in closer proximity. For males, the tial plasticity of women’s sexuality and the neurocircuitry for sexuality is more closely emphasis that women place on close rela- aligned with the circuitry for aggression, tionships as a context for sexuality. Some and the hormones that promote male sexu- theorists will emphasize the social origins of ality also increase certain types of aggres- these differences including the distinctive sion (Panksepp, 1998). socialization of male and female children, Based on available research, we can the location of men and women in the speculate that oxytocin may help to explain power structures of society, and the social a puzzling aspect of women’s same-sex re- roles deemed appropriate for members of lationships-how an emotionally intense each sex (e.g., Hyde & Durik, 2000). Other friendship can kindle sexual desire. Some researchers will look in more biologically women report the transformation of a close oriented directions. Here, similarities in re- platonic female friendship into a romantic search findings from women and from and sexual relationship. For example, in a other mammals concerning such phenom- study of sexual-minority young adults, 70% ena as female sexual plasticity (Baumeister, of women reported that their first sexual 2000) and the neuroendocrine underpin- encounter with a woman occurred within nings of nurturance, attachment, and sexu- an established friendship (Diamond & ality (Panksepp, 1998) are intriguing. These 16 L. A. Peplau

cross-species similarities raise the possibil- heterosexual women to report having ho- ity of similar evolutionary origins linked to mosexual relatives. Studies of twins reared differences in female and male roles in together find greater concordance (similar- mammalian reproduction and care of off- ity) between the sexual orientation of spring. However, whatever one’s discipli- monozygotic (“identical”) twins than be- nary loyalties, it is now evident that we will tween dizygotic twins or adoptive sisters. need to construct separate explanations for Although these findings are consistent with the sexual orientation of women and men, a genetic interpretation, critics emphasize reflecting their differing life experiences possible limitations of the research (e.g., and biological characteristics. McGuire, 1995). A first challenge for those studying ge- netic influences on women’s sexual orienta- Biological Specificity Versus Flexibility tion will be to demonstrate this effect more Perhaps the most fundamental question conclusively-for instance, with studies of about women’s sexual orientation has yet twins reared apart or the identification of to be addressed in this article, namely why genetic markers for women’s sexual orien- some women form intimate relationships tation. If these efforts are successful, a sec- with women and others with men. What fac- ond challenge will be to identify the mecha- tors determine the sex of one’s partner? nisms involved. Where in the processes Currently there is no adequate answer to leading to relationship formation do differ- this question. The general public often ences occur between women who bond frames this question in terms of the influ- with men versus women who bond with ence of biology versus the environment, na- women? Do genetic influences come into ture versus nurture. A more fruitful ques- play at the point of sexual desire or at the tion, however, is whether the biological point of attractionhnfatuation? Does sex- determinants of women’s sex-of-partner of-partner preference operate differently in choice are specific or flexible. relationships that are initiated owing to sex- ual attraction versus those that begin as pla- tonic friendships and later become sexual? Biological specificity What anatomical, psychological, or social From an evolutionary perspective, it might features of a male versus female partner are seem beneficial for to be relevant to sex-of-partner choice? There genetically determined, so that women are many important but unanswered ques- would inherently be attracted to males and tions. thus ensure the continuation of their . If heterosexual choice is the basic human Biological flexibility biological program, then women who have intimate relationships with women are An alternative possibility is that human atypical for the human species. The inver- evolution has not produced a built-in sex- sion hypothesis was an influential attempt of-partner preference in women. Perhaps, to identify the relevant differences between as suggested by researchers studying bi- heterosexual and lesbian women. As we sexuals, “ is a universal human have seen, however, efforts to link women’s potential” and social experiences narrow sex-of-partner choice to atypically mascu- our choice of intimate partners (Weinberg linized physiology, hormone levels, and pre- et al., 1994, p. 285). Another possibility, in- natal hormones have not been successful. creasingly popular, is that flexibility in part- Currently, the most promising research ner choice is uniquely characteristic of evidence that women’s sexual orientation women. Writing from the perspective of may be biologically influenced comes from evolutionary psychology, Mealey (2000, p. genetic studies (e.g., Bailey & Pillard, 1995). 343) observed that “biological inputs lead- For example, lesbians are more likely than ing to homosexual orientation seem to be Women’s sexual orientation 17 stronger in men than in women.” In his re- women, like their primate ancestors, have view of erotic plasticity, Baumeister (2000, sex and form relationships for many pur- p. 356) suggested that “the currently avail- poses, and that sex-of-partner preferences able data offer the best guess that male ho- may vary depending on the circumstances. mosexuality is more strongly linked to in- It is unlikely that a single developmental nate or genetic determinants while female trajectory will consistently lead women to homosexuality remains more subject to form relationships with women versus men. personal choice and social influence.” The forces leading oppressed Chinese To the extent that erotic plasticity is a women to form same-sex relationships with basic feature of women’s “nature,” then ex- fellow silk factory women were surely dif- planations for the phenomena described by ferent from those that led nineteenth-cen- the concept of sexual orientation will not tury American women college professors to start with the assumption of genetic, ana- share their adult lives with a female partner. tomical, or other biological differences So, too, were the circumstances leading among heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian American Indian women to live socially as women. Rather, investigations will assume men and to marry women. The prospect of biological commonality among women and charting the multiple pathways leading look instead to cognitive, psychological, and women to relationships with same-sex and social circumstances that shape and change other-sex partners is challenging and will women’s choice of partners across the life require the talents of researchers from span. Such research will recognize that many disciplines.

References

Andersen, B. L., Cyranowski, & Aarestad (2000). Be- Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A develop- yond artificial, sex-linked distinctions to conceptu- mental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological aliie female sexuality. Psychological Bulletin, 126, Review, 103, 320-335. 380-384. Blackwood, E. (1984). Sexuality and gender in certain Bailey, J. M. (1995). Biological perspectives on sexual native American tribes: The case of cross-gender orientation. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson females. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities over the Society, 10(1), 2742. lifespan (pp. 104-135). New York: Oxford Univer- Blackwood, E. (2000). Culture and women’s sexuali- sity Press. ties. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 223-238. Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. Blumstein, F! W., & Schwartz, P. (1976). Bisexuality (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5(2), evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating 171-181. psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Burn, S. M., O’Neil, K., & Nederend, S. (1996). Child- ChOZogy, 66, 1081-1093. hood tomboyism and adult androgyny. , Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1995). of human 34, 419428. sexual orientation. In R. C. Rosen (Ed.), Annual Byne, W. (1995). Science and belief Psychobiological review of sex research: Vol. 6 (pp. 126-150). Mason research on sexual orientation. Journal of Homo- City, IA: Society for the Scientific Study of Sexual- sexuality, 28(%),303-344. ity. Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex- social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocri- typed behavior and sexual orientation: A concep- nology, 23, 779418. tual analysis and quantitative review. Developmen- Collaer, M. L., & Hines, M. (1995). Human behavioral tal Psychology, 31, 43-55. sex differences: A role for gonadal hormones dur- Baldwin, J. D., & Baldwin, J. I. (1997). Gender differ- ing early development? Psychological Bulletin, 80, ences in sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behav- 389407. ior, 26(2), 181-210. Davis, K. B. (1929). Factors in the of twenty-fwo Bart, P. (1993). Protean women: The liquidity of female hundred women. New York: Harper. sexuality and the tenaciousness of lesbian identity. Davis, M., & Kennedy, E. L. (1989). Oral history and In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Heterosexu- the study of sexuality in the lesbian community: ality: Feminism and psychology reader (pp. Buffalo, New York, 194C1960. In M. B. Duberman, 246-252). London: Sage. M. Vicinus, & G. Chauncey (Eds), Hidden from Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic history: Reclaiming the gay and lesbian past (pp. plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible 42WO). New York: New American Library. and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, de Waa1,F. B. M. (1995). Sex as an alternative to aggres- 347-374. sion in the bonobo. In l? R. Abramson & S. D. 18 L. A. Peplau

Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual naturdsexual culture (pp. Katz, J. N. (1995). The invention of heterosexuality. 37-56). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. New York: Dutton. DeLamater, J. D. (1987). Gender differences in sexual Kendall(l999). Women in Lesotho and the (Western) scenarios. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Females, males and construction of . In E. Blackwood & S. sexuality: Theories and research (pp. 127-129). Al- E. Wieringa (Eds.), Female desires: Same-sex rela- bany: State University of New York Press. tions and practices across cultures (pp. DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. 157-180). New York: Columbia University Press social constructionism in the study of human sexu- Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social construction of lesbian- ality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10-18. ism. London: Sage. Diamant, A. L., Schuster, M. A., McGuigan, K., & Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S. (1995). Transitions from Lever, J. (1999). Lesbians’ sexual history with men. heterosexuality to lesbianism. Developmental Psy- Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 2730-2736. chology, 31, 95-104. Diamond, L. M. (2000a). Passionate friendships among Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of adolescent sexual-minority women. Journal of Re- gay men and lesbians , search on Adolescence, 10(2), 191-209. 26(4), 23-35. Diamond, L. M. (2000b). Sexual identity, attractions Krafft-Ebing, R. (1950). Psychopathia sexualis (F. J. and behavior among young sexual-minority Rebman, Trans.). Brooklyn, NY Physicians and women over a two-year period. Developmental Surgeons Book Co. (Original work published Psychology, 36, 241-250. 1908) Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). Ex- Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & plaining in the development of same-sex Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexu- sexuality among young women. Journal of Social ality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: Issues, 56(2), 297-313. University of Chicago Press. Diamond, L.M., Savin-Williams, R. C, & Dube, E. M. Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding (1999). Sex, dating, passionate friendships, and ro- sex. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 199-209. mance: Intimate peer relations among lesbian, gay, Lippa, R., & Arad, S.. (1997). The structure of sexual and bisexual adolescents. In W. Furman, C. Feiring, orientation and its relation to masculinity, feminin- & B. B. Brown (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives ity, and gender diagnosticity: Different for men and on adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 175-210). women. Sex Roles, 37(%),187-208. New York: Oxford University Press. McCaghy, C. H., & Skipper, J. K. (1969). Lesbian be- Ellis, A. (1963). Constitutional factors in homosexual- havior as an adaptation to the occupation of strip- ity. In H. G. Beige1 (Ed.), Advances in sex research ping. Social Problems, 17, 262-270. (pp. 161-186). New York: Harper & Row. McGuire, T. R. (1995). Is homosexuality genetic? A Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in critical review and some suggestions. Journal of . The Journal of Sex Research, 27(4), Homosexuality, 28(%),115-145. 527-555. Mealey, L. (2000). Sex differences: Development and Ellis, H. (1928). Studies in the psychology of sex. Volll: evolutionary strategies. New York: Academic Press Sexual inversion. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis. Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L. (1995). Psychoneuroendocri- Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal func- nology and sexual pleasure: The aspect of sexual tioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homo- orientation. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton sexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bulletin, (Eds.), Sexual naturdsexual culture (pp. 135-153). 101. 233-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Faderman, L. (1981). Surpassing the love of men. New Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Ehrhardt, A. A., Rosen, L. York: William Morrow. R., Gruen, R. S., Veridiano, N. P., Vann, F. H., & Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in Neuwalder, H. F. (1995). Prenatal estrogens and the mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9, development of homosexual orientation. Develop- 23-52. mental Psychology, 31, 12-21. Gay, J. (1986). “Mummies and babies” and friends and Newport, F. (1999). Americans remain more likely to lovers in Lesotho. In E. Blackwood (Ed.), The believe sexual orientation due to environment not many faces of homosexuality (pp. 97-116). New genetics [On-line]. Available: www.gallup.com/re- York: Harrington Park Press. leases/pr980725.asp. Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women:A study of Nottelmann, E. D., Inoff-Germain, G., Susman, E., & a women’s prison. New York: Wiley. Chrousos, G. P. (1990). Hormones and behavior at Goode, E. E. (1999). Intimate friendships. In L. Gross puberty. In J. Bancroft & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), & J. D. Woods (Eds.), The Columbia reader on Adolescence and puberty (pp. 88-123). New York: lesbians and gay men in media, society, and politics Oxford University Press. (pp. 33-36). New York: Columbia University Press. Nthunya, M. M. (1997). K. L. Kendall (Ed.), Singing Hatfield, E., Sprecher, S., Pillemer, J. T., Greenberger, away the hunger: Stories of a life in Lesotho. D., & Wexler, P. (1989). Gender differences in what Bloomington: Indiana University Press. is desired in the sexual relationship. Journal of Psy- Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences chology and Human Sexuality, I(2), 39-52. in sexuality: A meta-analysis Psychological Bulle- Hazan, C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). The place of tin, 114, 29-51. attachment in human mating. Review of General Palmer, J. D., Udry, J. R.,& Morris, N.M. (1982). Diur- Psychology, I, 186-204. nal and weekly, but no lunar rhythms in human Hyde, J. S., & Durik, A M. (2000). Gender differences copulation. Human Biology, 54, 111-121. in erotic plasticity-evohtionary or sociocultural Panksepp, J. (1998). A#ective neuroscience. New York: forces? Comment on Baumeister (2000). Psycho- Oxford University Press. logical Bulletin, 126, 375-379. Pearlman, S. F. (1987). The saga of continuing clash in WomenS sexual orientation 19

lesbian community, or will an army of ex-lovers Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. New- fail? In Boston Lesbian Psychologies Collective bury Park, CA: Sage. (Ed.), Lesbian psychologies (pp. 313-326). Urbana: Stearns, D. C. (1995). Gendered sexuality: The privileg- University of Illinois Press. ing of sex and gender in sexual orientation. Na- Peplau, L. A,, & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm tional Women’s Studies Journal, 7, 8-29. for understanding women’s sexuality and sexual Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 329-350. New York: Oxford University Press. Peplau, L. A., Garnets, L. D., Spalding, L. R., Conley, T. Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. D., & Veniegas, R. C. (1998). A critique of Bem’s L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). “Exotic Becomes Erotic” theory of sexual orienta- Psychological Review, 107, 41 1-429. tion. Psychological Review, 105, 387-394. Udry, J. R. (2000). Biological limits of gender construc- Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The intimate tion. American Sociological Review, 65, 443457. relationships of lesbians, gay and bisexuals. In C. Uvnas-Moberg, K. (1998). Oxytocin may mediate the Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds), Close relation- benefits of positive social interaction and emotions. ships:A sourcebook (pp. 111-124). Thousand Oaks, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 819435. CA: Sage. Veniegas, R. C., & Conley, T. D. (2000). Biological re- Peplau, L. A.,Spalding,L. R., Conley,T. D.,&Veniegas, search on women’s sexual orientations. Journal of R. C. (1999). The development of sexual orienta- Social Issues, 56(2), 267-282. tion in women. Annual Review of Sex Research, 10, Wallen, K. (1995). The evolution of female sexual de- 70-99. sire. In I? R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Plumb, P., & Cowan, G. (1984). A developmental study Sexual nuturdsexual culture (pp. 57-79). Chicago: of destereotyping and androgynous activity prefer- University of Chicago Press. ences of tomboys, nontomboys, and males. Sex Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Roles, 10, 703-712. Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1996). Beliefs about the York: Oxford University Press. state, goals, and objects of sexual desire. Journal of Wekker, G.(1999). “What’s identity got to do with it?” Sex and Marital Therapy, 22, 11Ck120. Rethinking identity in light of the Mati work in Regan, I? C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we Suriname. In E. Blackwood & S. E. Wieringa know about human sexual desire. Thousand Oaks, (Eds), Female desires: Same-sex relations and CA: Sage. transgender practices across cultures (pp. 119-138). Rose, S. (1996). Lesbian and gay love scripts. In E. D. New York: Columbia University Press. Rothblum & L. A. Bond (Eds), preventing het- Williams, W. L. (1998). Social acceptance of same-sex erosexism and homophobia (pp. 151-173). Thou- relationships in families: Models from other cul- sand Oaks, CA: Sage. tures. In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D’Augelli (Eds), Rothblum, E. D. (2000). Sexual orientation and sex in Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities in families (pp. women’s lives. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 53-71). New York: Oxford University Press. 193-204. Zucker, K. J., Bradley, S. J., & Lowry Sullivan, C. B. Rust, P. C. R. (2000). Bisexuality: A contemporary (1992). disorder in children. An- paradox for women. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), nual Review of Sex Research, 3, 73-120. 205-221. Zucker, K. J., Bradley, S. J., Oliver, G., Blake, J., Sankar, A (1986). Sisters and brothers, lovers and ene- Fleming, S., & Hood, J. (1996). Psychosexual devel- mies: Marriage resistance in Southern Kwangtung. opment of women with congenital adrenal hyper- In E. Blackwood (Ed.), The many faces of homo- plasia. Hormones and Behavior, 30, 3W318. sexuality (pp. 69-81). New York: Harrington Park Press.