Personal Relationships, 8 (2001), 1-19. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright 02001 ISSPR. 1350-4126101 $9.50 DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR ARTICLE Rethinking women’s sexual orientation: An interdisciplinary, relationship-focused approach LETITIA ANNE PEPLAU University of California, Los Angeles Anne Peplau is a professor of social psychology 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 gender influences close relationships has been pursued in numer- ous studies of friendship, dating, marriage, and same-sex 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 social psychology, sex research, evolutionary psychology, attachment theory, and neuroscience. 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 sexual desire, 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 lesbian 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 biology for an- Describing Women’s Intimate swers. From 1977 to 1999 the proportion of Relationships With Women adults saying that homosexuality 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 social constructionism (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, history, and women who identify as lesbian are in a neuroscience can provide much greater un- long-term, monogamous relationship with a derstanding. woman 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- human 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, marriages 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-law. 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 (Gay, 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 fear of pregnancy 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 romantic friendship 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- man 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 Havelock Ellis (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