Photo courtesy of Greg Clements
‘I’m not sure there’s a name for what I am,’ says Dillon, a college hockey player. Welcome to the world of the mostly straights.
Dillon, a college varsity hockey goalie, is an eager volunteer for our interview. In fact, he so loves telling his story that he stays beyond the 90 minutes he believes it will take, and offers to come back for the chance to talk some more. When we reschedule, he’s thrilled, and shakes my hand and thanks me four times in the process of leaving.
Besides being remarkably polite, Dillon is talkative, self-aware, and reflective, with an engaging smile and an at-ease quality. Nothing he says feels rehearsed. It’s as if each topic brings forth another triumph, as if he’s discovering his life as he reflects on the questions.
When eventually asked about his sexuality, Dillon isn’t fazed. Though he wants to “fuck lots of girls” before graduation, he’s not entirely heterosexual. “I’m not sure there’s a name for what I am,” he says. He wants this process, this interview, to help him figure it out.
♦♦♦
By his own admission, Dillon says he resides in the “Sexual Netherlands” (his words), a place that exists between heterosexuality and bisexuality. In previous generations, such individuals might have been described as “straight but not narrow,” “bending a little,” and “heteroflexible.”
Dillon is part of a growing trend of young men who are secure in their heterosexuality and yet remain aware of their potential to experience far more—sexual attractions, sexual interactions, crushes, and, ocassionally romantic relationships with other guys. Dillon lives these contradictions—seemingly hetero guys who now reject that label, sexual description, and identity.
And he is not alone. National surveys in the U.S. and Canada show that 3 to 4 percent of male teenagers, when given the choice to select a term that best describes their sexual feelings, desires, and behaviors, opt not for heterosexual, bisexual, or gay, but for “mostly” or “predominantly” heterosexual.
An even higher percentage of post-high-school young-adult men in the U.S. and in a handful of other countries (including New Zealand and Norway) make the same choice. There are now more young men who feel they are “mostly straight” than who say they are bisexual or gay.
To the uninitiated, “mostly straight” is a paradox. These young men fracture the heterosexual agenda—or do we call it a lifestyle? If a guy is not exclusively into girls, he can’t be totally straight. Aren’t you supposed to pick a side?
If a guy is not straight, not bisexual, and not gay—and yet still falls in love and gets an erection—what the hell is he?
It’s a common misconception that the “mostly straight” phenomenon is nothing more than an adolescent foray into sexual experimentation, possibly due to excessive hormones and sexual confusion.
Sizable numbers of young men maintain their “mostly straight” status—not just as adolescents or college students, but as adults. Of the 160 guys we interviewed for a study in 2008 and 2009, nearly one in eight reported same-sex attractions, fantasies, and crushes. The majority had these feelings since high school; a few others developed them more recently. And in a national sample of young men whose average age was 22, the “mostly straight” proportion increased when they completed the same survey six years later.
These men aren’t bisexuals in disguise. They’re not closeted gay men seeking the privileges afforded to heterosexuals in society. They’re not simply tired of sex with women. With the words “mostly straight,” they’re describing a unique sexual identity, their complete romantic self.
♦♦♦
Among the “mostly straights” we surveyed, a few subtypes stood out.
First is the guy whose progressive political leanings lead him to feel constrained by traditional heterosexuality and masculinity, an outdated and unnecessary burden. “I might have been gay if I’d been raised differently,” one said. “Aren’t we all born bisexual and culture pushes us one way or another?” He challenges homophobic customs and assumptions. One such young man sings in a gay chorus; another marches in pride parades as an ally; a third intends to “come out” as mostly straight in the military to test the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He wants to know, how gay does one have to be to count?
Second is the guy who finds guys physically attractive. One interviewee pleaded, “I mean, come on, tell me some guys aren’t hot!” If he finds himself staring at men in the gym, on the sports field, around the neighborhood, and in Details, Instinct, and Vman, then how can he say to himself that he is totally straight? He notices guys in the buff and who are buff, visually appealing, and pleasurable to be around. He wonders if he only desires the toned body, stylistic appearance, and athletic facility—and not the sexuality.
A third guy may admit that he’s a little sexually attracted to guys. It may not be his top priority, but he’ll acknowledge that men occasionally pop up in his masturbatory fantasies. He doesn’t expect to have sex with a man, but he isn’t ruling it out; he has a willingness to experiment. He’s into sexual pleasure without strings, without meaning. Anything is possible, given the right circumstances with the right person. (Well, almost anything: most interviewees drew the line at actual male-male intercourse.)
A fourth guy is a guy like Dillon: he grants that he’s not totally straight, and that his feelings for guys are more than just sexual—they’re romantic. He can imagine experiencing emotional, intimate relationships with other young men. It just seems natural. He’s into cuddling without the pressure of sex, and he could spend countless hours with “special buddies.” He’s been infatuated with best friends, teammates, and videogame partners.
All four guys have one thing in common: unlike their totally straight brothers, they’re not averse to sexual or romantic feelings, encounters, or relationships with other males.
♦♦♦
It’s unlikely that mostly straight youth are limited to just four types. As additional young men recognize and reveal their sexual breadth, they assist all of us to understand previously unrecognized sexual and romantic possibilities. How many of us have these feelings and are clamoring to “come out” as mostly straight?
Indeed, throughout his life, Dillon has had boy chums, boy crushes, and boy infatuations with teammates and best friends. He makes lingering, intense, frequent references to his core group of high-school buddies and to the male companionship he habitually seeks. He readily hugs and even cuddles with male friends while watching a movie and eating popcorn, especially if they are “on the same wavelength.”
Dillon could see himself meeting a guy and together developing a “partnership.” They wouldn’t act on it sexually, but they’d be physically affectionate. Dillon imagines that their relationship would be difficult for others to understand. They’d think it was a gay relationship because of the time he and his partner spent together, the secrets they shared, and the knowing glances, nods, and code words they exchanged. This is the “homosexual thing” that most interests him.
Far more than we realize, young males wait to be released from their heterosexual straightjackets.
Dillon might just show us the way.
—By Ritch Savin-Williams and Kenneth Cohen
– photo courtesy Greg Clements
About Ritch C. Savin-Williams and Kenneth M. Cohen
I don’t fall into any of the cliche’s that my homosexual or more equally bisexual friends fall into. I’m not at all camp or in any way cliche queer – I am if anything, cliche hetero-normative – apart from occasionally enjoying sex with men.
I don’t think straight but not narrow, bending a little, or hetero flexible applies to me. It diminishes I think the significance of my interest in men – but bisexual I think exaggerates it. I guess Mostly Straight is an accurate term – but I’d be reluctant to use it – because it comes with all the context and implications of straight. I don’t think you can add a modifier to straight or hetero and convey the message that you have a genuine sexual interest in other men. I think it just identifies you as open minded, or possibly a straight guy who likes catching from your girlfriend from time to time. And for a lot of guys I know who share my preference for women, but interest in men – that’s not the case.
I’ve taken to self identifying as bisexual under a least flawed rationalization – because I like boys and girls, and like boys more than I think is implied by any kind of modified phrasing of straight. But it’s misleading because I don’t like boys and girls equally. I’m a reasonably sexually active guy – and my female sexual partners dramatically out number my male sexual partners. In terms of frequency – I doubt sexual encounters involving other men make up even a single percentage of all my sexual history. But I’m not some straight, or even close enough to it that I feel comfortable adding a qualifier to straight to describe myself.
I wish that language better suited describing what I am. But I’m much more comfortable being complicated, than I would be being pigeon holed.
Just to help you out a bit here (I know that sounds pretentious); Bisexual has never meant “equally attracted to both sexes”. Bi- as a prefix simply means two, or both. So saying your Bisexual doesn’t mean you’re equally attracted to both, in fact most in the Bi community reject that belief. Unfortunately, most outside of it *don’t* reject that belief. So therein I suppose lies your problem.
Right on about bisexuality being not equally attracted to both sexes.
A term I have used before for my sexual orientation is ‘dependent’… As it is dependent upon the person and our connection more than any particular gender or stereotype of ‘person’ (think dyke, camp, etc. type labels). I’ve dated across the gender spectrum, so even bisexual (for me) doesn’t fit, and pansexual makes people think of sex with food. Not what I was going for! I’ve also called myself open and non-defining. Right now, when someone asks, I just say my orientation is ‘Yes!’… As it is. If we click, my orientation is towards you, and not necessarily related to your genitalia.
Huh. I like your response. Kinda like in “Chasing Amy” when she said she wasn’t only into guys or only into girls, but that she was open to falling for either. And she went on to say, why limit who you can potentially love to just guys or just girls? Be open to both! More choice! Bang on.
Scootah,
The most inclusive term that you could use would be ‘queer’. This word is not hateful as would have connoted in the past. It is simply a term for any person who does not wish to be restricted to sexual normative categories. I myself am a male-bodied person with a male-bodied partner who, at this point in my life have only had sex with men, so I use the identifier ‘gay’ only in a casual sense or when talking to those who I don’t think would grasp the concept of queer, despite truly identifying as queer.
Thanks!
I think people shouldn’t be pigeon holed to be gay or straight or even bi. If Dillon feels he is “mostly straight” than that is how he is defining his sexuality. No one should define it for him but himself.
“‘Aren’t we all born bisexual and culture pushes us one way or another?’ He challenges homophobic customs and assumptions.”
–The man you quoted here is not challenging homophobic customs and assumptions. The idea that men are “turned gay”–”pushed one way or another”– is traditionally, if not dogmatically, homophobic. The customs and assumptions herein described are consistent with the idea that we can cure people who are homosexual if only we could “push” them the right way. (Which, even more problematically, begs the question What is the Right Way?)
I recognize that, unlike homophobic people, he is accepting of homosexuality. Yet still, the vague idea that people listlessly drift towards their sexuality undermines its place within the innermost foundations of the soul. It’s not a hobby, or cultural inkling, or a choice– it’s who people are.
When I came out lo those many years ago (I’ve been out almost as long as this kid has been alive!), I had two choices, “gay” or “straight”. That’s it. Bisexuals, pansexuals and queers were just people who stuck their parts wherever they felt like it and were totally marginalized for their refusal to “pick a side”.
Let’s face it, any person who has come out knows how it feels to be told s/he has “to pick a side”. Bisexuals, even today, are either lumped in as “gay” by the straight community or “gay-in-training” by the gay community. No wonder we have so many miserable gay men walking around today; they don’t feel comfortable with the “gay” label because they aren’t really gay, and we have so many miserable straight guys because they aren’t really “straight”. However society tells them they have to be one way or the other!
Add to that the whole debate about “straight privilege” when a bisexual man settles down with a woman, and you’ve got some majorly messed up men who are being forced into an identity by the gay community.
I agree 100% with the young men in this article, they are forced to choose by our culture, which refuses to acknowledge sexual fluidity and insists on a label for everything.
i think people just like to label things too much, if they cant pinpoint something exactly it makes them nervous. as a lesbian who has (occasionally still does) slept with men i consider myself 100% lesbian because though i can lay with a man i can’t connect with or see myself putting up with one for the rest of my life.
i say love who you can while you can regardless of what’s between the legs!
You’ll find no disagreement from me on this!
@ReallyPeople-If you actually were really a Lesbian you wouldn’t be having sex with men at all.
You’re bisexual but closeted about your real sexuality. Get over your internalized biphobia.
@ Sam: I think the point of this article is that these things are much more nuanced and that self-identification is important. In other words, there’s no reason for you to totally shut down realpeople for how they self-identify.
@Tali: Amen to that. Self-identification is the most important (if not most socially consequential) part. Labels make life easier for those removed from the situation, but harder for those who don’t fit the labels perfectly.
@Jacob: I don’t think the man quoted in the article was intending to support the notion of cultural binaries. In fact, I think he may have been criticizing the fact that we are socialized to only think in categories. In this sense, I agree with Dave. And in regard to your comment that sexuality is not a cultural inkling, but has foundations in the soul… perhaps that is true for you (and happens to also be true for me). But sexuality in itself is not the same for everyone. For some, sexual fluidity is recreational… and there is nothing wrong with that. We shouldn’t try to push anyone into any category, that’s for sure (@Sam). That is counterproductive and only supports homophobic categorization of what is (for many if not all) a fluid, everchanging aspect of self.
Out of respect to other members of the LGBT community, although I identify as pansexual, if I’m in a relationship that APPEARS heterosexual, I hold onto an ally status but recognize that my relationship is privileged because it “looks” straight. I’m not getting judged for being a bisexual dating a bisexual if we’re in a relationship where our non-heterosexual orientations are invisible.
It sucks sometimes to not take part in those conversations, but for myself, I feel disrespectful saying “oh but I’m oppressed too!” when, really, I’m not. I can hold hands with my partner in public or kiss goodbye when we go our separate ways on the sidewalk, and when we go to restaurants we are treated as a couple automatically.
This is off-topic a little, and I like that there’s a good discussion about there being more than two (or three, or five) sexual orientations just like I think there are more than two genders, but we live in a binary world and need to be respectful of people whose selves really have to face that head-on every day of their lives.
Unfortunately, in research the option of identifying as “pansexual” is seldom given. Yet, when so offered usually 1-2% (usually women) will so identify. When I do workshops for youth, pansexual is far more commonly endorsed. Here is a topic that is ripe for an aspiring graduate student! Ritch.
“I feel disrespectful saying “oh but I’m oppressed too!” when, really, I’m not. I can hold hands with my partner in public or kiss goodbye when we go our separate ways on the sidewalk, and when we go to restaurants we are treated as a couple automatically.”
Yeah. But can you tell your partner you sometimes find people of the same sex attractive? Or do you have to keep it a secret because it “grosses” him/her out? I think that’s the real litmus test right there.
Not being able to share my full being with people with whom I’m supposed to be in an open, trusting relationship is, to me, “oppression.”
Telling other gay guys “hey, I like guys too,” and then to be told “yeah, whatever, you’re gay but you don’t want to come out” (when I’m coming out to YOU) is, to me “oppression.”
What happened to pomosexual? It stands for a post modern sexuality where gender is irrelevant. I believe that best describes me.
I do have to agree with someone who posted earlier though- I was called butch Ron all through college because I didn’t fit in the gay world. I was told that I would come down from the bi ledge at some point. I was told this even though I was out from when I was 13 and they were just coming out in college. I still laugh today when I think about how follish and arrogant they were.
I completely disagree with your point. First of all, the only way you won’t face opression is if no one realizes you’re bi. I find that a litle hard to happen, unless you stop talking abt your past romantic history, abt your crushes, ppl you find atractive, etc. Trust me, a homophobic person doesn’t care if you’re in an oposite-sex relationship. If they perceive you as queer, you’re still the enemy (for some of them, even more so, because you had the ”choice” of living an exclusively heterosexual life, and you didn’t).
Also, there’s more than one research showing that bi ppl are more affected by some aspects of heteronormativity than gay/lesbian ppl. As an example, Brazilian researches showing bi teenagers atempt suicide in a greater number than lesbian/gay teens, and Australian researches showing bi women are more prone to binge drinking, depression, and sexual assault (among other things). The stereotype of the bisexual woman as an oversexed unstable creature makes us easy targets of creepy pervs who think they’ll have their way with us, and have no need to show respect because we hump everything that moves.
But the real point here is not that: the point is ”bisexual” is the word that reflects my identity. THAT’S my way of loving, THAT’S my way of relating to ppl. I don’t lose my identity when I date a man, and I certainly won’t be letting go of the word that best describes ME for the sake of not offending ppl who think there’s only so much opression to go around. I’m not straight, I’m not ”mostly” straight, I’m not an ally. I’m BISEXUAL, always have been, always will be, and that doesn’t change based on the gender of the person I happen to love.
BUT THIS DOESN’T FIT MY RIGID WORLDVIEW ON HUMAN SEXUAL PREFERENCES.
Seriously though:
“These men aren’t bisexuals in disguise. They’re not closeted gay men seeking the privileges afforded to heterosexuals in society. They’re not simply tired of sex with women.”
What? Does a “straight” man really just bone another dude because he is bored of women? (Spoiler alert: NO)
“I might have been gay if I’d been raised differently.”
Are you kidding me? Just like all those gay kids who could have been straight but their parents didn’t raise them the right way? Sorry gays, your parents didn’t try hard enough.
“Aren’t we all born bisexual and culture pushes us one way or another?”
…..No?
This is an important topic even though I feel that it was approached the wrong way. We don’t need more sexual preference “buckets” to fit people into, we need to acknowledge that there are a lot of factors that determine who we are sexually/emotionally/irrationally attracted to. Gender is the one we pay attention to because it is the most visually obvious. For a lot of people, gender preference isn’t completely set in stone, and that is when the rigid gay/straight bullshit starts to fall apart.
I agree. We don’t need more buckets… labels if you will. Everyone is looking for a description though. How do you describe yourself? How do you relate to others? Maybe at some point, marriage will have no meaning except that it will be exclusive. Maybe at some point, people will be free to date who they want and how they want without stereotypes of gay/straight……..
“I might have been gay if I’d been raised differently.”
Are you kidding me? Just like all those gay kids who could have been straight but their parents didn’t raise them the right way? Sorry gays, your parents didn’t try hard enough.
You are jumping to this conclusion on your own. No one is saying parents didn’t “try” hard enough one way or another, but that sometimes our sexualities are made to be what they are by outside forces.
The quote above sounds like a gay whose parents DID “try hard enough.” And silencing this guy’s sexuality worked. That instead of being nurtured to follow his own instincts, he was told what his sexuality would be.
This concept shouldn’t be too alien to the gay world. Isn’t this why gays married and even had children to cover up appearances, leading a double-life in the background? Why a lot of these “straight-actors” are the way they are?
I really truly think that sexuality can be influenced one way or another; not that it SHOULD be, but that it just is. This is why we have strange cases like these; guys just can’t be who they are.
I have a feeling that a lot of “straights” out there are denying their bi, “mostly-straight” side for whatever reason. (family, friends, church etc…) It was forced into repression by a hard society. Yes, I think these guys would be openly “bi,” “mostly straight,” or even “gay” if they were given the chance to nurture that part of themselves.
“I might have been gay if I’d been raised differently.”
As far as I can tell, this is NOT a reference to “turning” anyone one way or another. It is a reference to the fact that, particularly in American culture, young men are socialized to believe that gayness = weakness (because almost all of the gay role models we see in the media are campy or portrayed as such). Weakness does not gel with standard definitions of masculinity, and if you are not masculine, you are not a man. Therefore, accepting your homosexual desires presents a fundamental challenge to your gender identity. Following this logic, if you are not a man you are “obviously” more of a woman, and man > woman. So identifying as “gay” knocks you down on the totem pole to the same status level as women. “Ew!” say the followers of this logic (subconsciously, of course, since open misogyny is only cool in rap music)… and so, in order to preserve boys’ self esteem and sense of supremity, and mold them into nice status-quo-supporting, binary-gender-and-traditional-sexual-identity-supporting, patriarchy-supporting angels, socialization pushes them in the direction of heterosexuality (“for their own good – and safety”). I think what this man is saying is that, if not for this ludicrous logic and the standard train of thought that follows from it, his fundamental development may have allowed him to be more comfortable embracing his queer desires. Instead, his development has led him to embrace (and prefer) “straightness,” and has well-constructed barriers to break down before it allows complete comfort with fluidity.
Sexuality is a continuum even more flexible than gender; good for people becomes comfortable with that reality.
“Sexuality is a continuum even more flexible than gender; good for people becomes comfortable with that reality.”
I agree with this sentiment.
We all need at times to be comforted, held and touched. Even straight men. The more we make non-sexual cuddling and touching with other guys a part of our lives, the more it should be accepted in a homophobic-based society.
Not that my sentence made any sense grammatically…
People are SO uncomfortable with the word or concept of bisexuality, and with ambiguity in general, that they try to make a number of additional caveats, to try to explain themselves. Sexuality is a spectrum — most people fit within that spectrum (see the Kinsey Reports), anywhere from 99% straight to 99% gay — very few are actually 100% of either or exactly 50-50%. But because bisexuality is so taboo, it is seen as negative both to straight and gay lifestyles, and many people will go to great lengths to avoid it, even switching from “straight” to “gay” to “straight” labels over their lifetime, as their partnerships change.
I hope as these articles continue, they also interview and research older men — in their 30s and beyond — who have had different relationships over their lifetime. Younger men have accepted that it is ok to be straight or gay — but an openly bisexual male is still controversial for most people, because it conjures up an images of promiscuity, which is a false stereotype.
Why does there need to be a label? And more specifically, why is it a requirement that we create sub-categories in addition to gay, straight or bi-sexual?
People will do what they do. Some are straight, some are gay and some are both. Only the most naive of us fail to recognize this. But this whole “mostly straight” or “homoflexible” stuff is ridiculous. If you like men and women you’re bi-sexual. Period. The term does not imply an exact 50/50 split between the sexes, it just means you’re into both men and women.
But regarding one of the comments, I’m curious what you mean by “The more we make non-sexual cuddling and touching with other guys a part of our lives, the more it should be accepted in a homophobic-based society.”
I accept that some people do that and if that’s what floats their boat, wonderful. Have at it. But I certainly do not want to make cuddling with male friends a part of my life. That would be awkward and uncomfortable and unpleasant, and I don’t feel that’s homophobic or ignorant at all. Why would I ever want to do something in my personal life that made me uncomfortable? Again, I’m fine with others doing it, but in no way do I want that to part of my life.
On the other hand, why does it matter if they choose to call themselves heteroflexible/mostly straight/whatever they choose? It’s their label, not yours, right? Let they identify as they choose; it’s not hurting you.
Nothin’ else against your comment, just chiming in with this.
Point taken, people can call themselves whatever they want.
Then again, if one of these terms ends up sticking then everyone will be called that even if it doesn’t fit them. My main point was the term bi-sexual is technically correct. You enjoy sexual intimacy with both sexes. That’s the long and short of all this right? So I guess I’m wondering why further clarification is necessary.
I feel like just saying “they enjoy sexual intimacy with both sexes” is glossing over what they actually feel, honestly. You say bisexual and my thoughts would not be anywhere near most of these people (for better or for worse). Mostly straight/heteroflexible/along those lines? I grok that a lot better; it’s a clearer term to describe how they feel about themselves, it explains them better than “bisexual” does.
And really, if people insist on calling everyone by a new term it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is kinda why I made the point of “let people define themselves how they will”. Yes, a new term could (potentially) spread to be applied to a lot of people. It wouldn’t be accurate because it isn’t their own self-definition. So you get people trying to find a term that does fit them (let’s face it, society likes its labels and isn’t content to leave people as people) – but so long as we insist on trying to peg “everyone who acts as x is y” we’ll just see more and more stuff like this (especially since Internet makes like meet like more often).
So yeah. Sorry for ramblin’.
i love the sexual ambiguity that is well explained here. Well, I am mostly gay, i have had fleeting hetero feelings around certain women and situations. I like to hear about the other side of this, too: mostly hetero guys with occasional same-sex attractions.
The Comments have been fascinating and have raised a number of issues. I have just a couple of additional points to make at this point.
First, the label “mostly straight” is not one that I imposed on the young men. It was their choice and as such I respect their right to call themselves whatever they want to. I think most young men are not too fond in general of adults labeling their sexuality. By the way, one term I have heard (but am not personally too fond of) from the young men is a “Dude, most of the time.” Not sure that term helps us much…
Second, most bisexual men are not 50/50 in terms of males/females but can range widely. The diversity is huge. Some predominantly fall in love with one sex and have sex with the other; some have sexual attractions for one sex but never have sex with such individuals; some can be 90/10, 60/40, or any combination; some have times when they want to “be with” one sex and not the other and then at a later time switch this; some have partners of both sexes at the same time. You’ve got to love the options!
Third, very few of the 160 young men I interviewed believed the “born bisexual” explanation. Nearly all believed in a genetic, born that way view.
Ritch.
I believe that we are all unique individuals and we only know our own physiology and we do not know other peoples physiology.
I was born gay and I have knowingly been attracted to the same sex since I was five years old when I had a crush on a boy in the neighborhood.
I tried to fit into the norm with my peers, even dated some girls and tried necking etc. I was unable to become aroused no matter how attractive the girls were and the reaction of my willy was nada.
I went into the Navy and put my sexual desires aside, but I found that the Navy was loaded with gay guys as well as straight guys that wanted a BJ.
I wanted a relationship with a man but all of the social rules that I had been brought up with caused me much confusion.
Then when I was 20 I remembered the one rule that cleared up the confusion. “Know who you are and be that person.”
I accepted myself as a gay man and have been happy ever since.
I found my lifetime partner whom I have been with for almost 49 years. We live in Massachusetts so we have been legally married for 6 1/2 years.
Good luck to all and be yourself.
Perfect!
I wonder at the motives of this study. The statement “Dillon might just show us the way” of how to “be released from (his) heterosexual straightjacket” bothers me. It suggests the author’s discomfort with current labels like gay or bisexual. Supposedly, Dillon’s ideal relationship with the same gender is unsexual. Wouldn’t it just be “friendship” then? If the author’s are stating that it is somewhat sexual, then wouldn’t it just be homosexuality or bisexuality (without physical sexual stimulation), not “mostly straight”? Yes, they are identifying a trend; but it feels uncomfortably like their research is based in homophobia.
They’re studying sexual development. The word ‘development’ suggests change over time. I wonder if fixed labels like “mostly straight” have any place in developmental studies then.
These young people haven’t yet determined their lifelong orientation, and are using this (temporary) label in preference to labels with negative sociopolitical connotations. I suggest your study is not about “sexual development”, but how a homphobic society impacts youth identity.
Words and labels are unable to fully encompass the complexity of a thing anyway. A hill to one may be a mountain to another, and doesn’t even deal with its composition.
One idea your study supports is the idea that labels like gay and straight are useless and often harmful. Most of the labels for same-sex attraction are hateful – like queer, fag – and should be as abhorred as much as the n-word (fortunately, there seems to be a movement occurring now to do just that by celebs like Anderson Cooper and Ellen).
As a man who has sex with men, I don’t identify with the label ‘gay’. It certainly doesn’t describe me – I’m more often pissed off than happy about things.
I agree. If Dillon does not want sex but rather an emotional bond with other men that does not make him “mostly straight,” it makes him “human.”
Why can’t a deep emotional connection, a friendship, be highly sought and valued without being sexualized? Or worse, without being infantilized into a “man crush” or a “bromance”?
I don’t particularly care who’s having sex with whom. It’s not really my business. But in the spirit of the article, I’ll share anyway — I’m not having sex at the moment with anyone!
I’m a Family Therapist who has also done sex research on Inter-Racial Same-Sex Couples.
1) I found in interesting when I was presenting at a FTM Conference, the registration form had 28 different ways of self-identifying oneself and an additional blank if you didn’t feel the 28 were enough.
2) I am a person of color (American Indian) and was raised with the reality—If you tell ME what to call myself—that’s colonialism. If I tell YOU what to call me—that’s self-empowerment, which helps explain the 28 categories at the FTM Conference.
3) There’s something called the Klein Grid that addresses this topic: http://kleingridonline.com/ The problem with historical “labels” is that they’re based on actual behavior, which can change over time (if I ask you your sexual history at the age of 16, you will probably give a different answer than if I ask you at 46) and don’t touch on fantasy. Just so, is a man married to a woman who straps on a dildo and anally penetrates him while he fantasizes being with another man, still count as a “heterosexual” act? Behaviorally—you betcha! That’s why more modern studies also look at not only the behavior, but the fantasies that go with the behavior. The Klein Grid splits human interactions on a number of levels, so you can have someone with a “high” mark in “homo-social” (prefers to social with other men), but scores a low “homo-sexual” because he doesn’t desire to have sex with other men. And like a number of self-identified gay men I’ve met—you can have someone who scores “high” in “homo-sexual” but low in “homo-emotional”—thus a man who will happily have sex with another man but isn’t about to then sleep with him. Anyway, check out the Klein Grid for yourself—and check out the Gay Sports site http://competenetwork.com/ (Compete Magazine-“We ARE Gay Sports”)
The “the motives of this study” were to listen to young men as they reflect about the development of their sexuality, to give them a voice, and to place some context around their experiences. We can assure you that the motives were not homophobic!
The reason why we believe that Dillon might “show us the way” is that young men are increasingly breaking traditional barriers about identity labels—heterosexual, bisexual, and gay just don’t do it anymore. Of course, “mostly straight” is also a label but Dillon meant it more as a descriptor of his sexual attractions, desires, crushes, behavior, fantasies (Klein might have been on to something!) than as an identity. In his real world, I doubt that Dillon announces that he is “mostly straight.”
These men are not ‘not bisexual.’ They are bisexuals who think Bi means 50/50 or flippant or greedy. Maybe the overwhelmingly more popular scenario of two girls one guy to two guys one girl (not to be confused with a gangbang, but that’s another tangent) is to blame. I’d like to see this study alongside studies showing female interest in watching men sexualize with men.
Mostly I’d like to extend my empathy as a bisexual to all the lesbians who are sick of bisexual girls calling themselves lesbians. If you’ve only ever fantasized about AND enjoyed one, you are homo or hetero. If you’ve enjoyed both you are bi.
The problem is clarifying the definition of bi as both not (necessarily) both equally and acknowledging why guys don’t like to call themselves Bi half as often as girls do.
While I know that anyone who has some sexual interest more than one gender is defined as bisexual – I also know that ‘Faggot’ is defined as a bundle of sticks and branches, I also understand that a word is defined by its usage and a word used as a label is defined by its perception.
Honestly, I think a majority of people interpret ‘Bisexual’ as a Kinsey Scale ’3′ – Equally heterosexual and homosexual. I know that on the Kinsey Scale, anywhere between 1 and 5 could be considered bisexual – but my observation is that that isn’t how the word is used.
I’m probably a Kinsey 1, although describing my occasional homosexuality as incidental also feels misleadingly diminishing towards those emotions. Kinsey 1 or Kinsey 2 is a pretty awkward way to self describe though.
Interesting article. When/if people ask, I’ve been calling myself “mostly straight” since High School. I suppose I fit the strict definition of “Bisexual” as defined by “interested in some way in both women and men” but calling myself that makes people assume things I don’t want them to assume. I’ve found “mostly straight” works better than anything else I’ve tried.
What resonated with me the most here was the idea that our labels are restrictive, both because they limit how people perceive other people (many people slot others neatly into gay, straight, or bi, despite the reality that many people don’t feel like these labels are a good fit ) and because they restrict how people are willing to act with one another (men unwilling to show affection with other men because of how it will be perceived by others). I don’t think society will change overnight but I hope we can start to move toward a society where who you touch doesn’t need to define you.
One of the unfortunate side effects of feminism and the gay rights movement is that some men became afraid or uncomfortable with their feelings for other men. I am glad that some members of the newer generation are not afraid of these feelings and, in fact, exploring them. Let’s hope that the full spectrum of emotions shared between men may be honored and celebrated.
What the FUCK are you talking about? This has NOTHING to do with feminism. Ass.
this is a stupid article. they are bisexual. nothing new. bisexual doesn’t mean you prefer men and women equally. it simply means you can go both ways. just because you prefer not to go both ways most of the time doesn’t mean you have created a new sexuality. get over it. you are bisexual. EOD.
Maybe Dillon is showing us something more than how (not) to categorize sexual orientation. His story called to mind an article about asexuality. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-there-asexuals-among-us-on-the-2009-10-29) “Some are interested in nonsexual, romantic relationships (including cuddling and kissing but no genital contact), while others aren’t.”
For many these days, sex often seems to consist of hooking up for a night, or sitting in front of a computer screen masturbating. Is it possible these behaviors aren’t meeting our deeper needs for close, trusted companionship and regular affectionate touch? Perhaps when in pursuit of the latter healthy contact, gender orientation isn’t the most important factor. Affection and trusted companionship of the type Dillon describes release oxytocin, which not only strengthens emotional bonds but also seems to benefit physical and psychological health. Psychologists sometimes think of this kind of contact as occurring naturally only between caregivers and infants, but in pair-bonding species (like ours), adults also thrive on such behaviors. See: http://www.news.wisc.edu/18218 Pair-bonding monkeys benefit from affection and sexual behaviors (including mere erections). They also engage in a lot of nonconceptive (and, if bonobos and macaques are any indication) even non-ejaculatory sex.
Maybe humans can benefit from shifting today’s orgasm focus more in the direction of meeting its under met(?) needs for these bonding behaviors…as Dillon apparently has.
This is why I like the word “queer.” It can cover any sort of non-hetero sexuality. It can also cover those of us who are romantically interested in people who are genderqueer, trans, or otherwise don’t fit neatly into binary sex/gender categories, which the word “bisexual” implies to me (there are not only 2 sexes and there are not only 2 genders).
But yes I do agree with the other posters that “bi” has never meant “equally attracted to both men and women.”
If one means by “bisexual” the literal “attracted to both sexes,” then, yes, Dillon is “bi” with that definition. But Dillon means far more than a sex object attraction; he’s talking about an identity, a term that to him represents or describes his sexuality. And, there are 3 to 5 times as many young men who identify as “mostly straight” than identify as “bisexual.” I don’t think all of them are stupid. Ritch.