Cultural Identity

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20

Journal of Homosexuality

ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape: Toward an Interpretive Theory of the Development of Sexual Orientation and Identity

Liahna E. Gordon & Tony J. Silva

To cite this article: Liahna E. Gordon & Tony J. Silva (2015) Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape: Toward an Interpretive Theory of the Development of Sexual Orientation and Identity, Journal of Homosexuality, 62:4, 495-530, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.986417

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.986417

Published online: 08 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3883

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Journal of Homosexuality, 62:495–530, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.986417

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape: Toward an Interpretive Theory of the Development

of Sexual Orientation and Identity

LIAHNA E. GORDON, PhD Department of Sociology, California State University, Chico, Chico, California, USA

TONY J. SILVA, BA Department of Sociology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, USA

Building on Paula Rust’s (1996) concept of a sexual landscape, we propose an interpretive theory of the development of both sex- ual orientation and sexual identity. We seek to reconcile human agency with active and shifting influences in social context and to recognize the inherent complexity of environmental factors while acknowledging the role that biological potential plays. We ground our model in the insights of three compatible and related theoret- ical perspectives: social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, and scripting theory. Within this framework, we explain how sexual orientation and sexual identities develop and potentially change.

KEYWORDS sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual fluidity, homosexuality, bisexuality, changes to sexual orientation, development of sexual orientation, social constructionism, environmental influences on sexual orientation, sociological perspective, reparative therapy

In recent years interest in biological explanations for the development of sexual orientation has intensified. For gay rights and marriage equality movements, arguing that sexual orientation results from biological destiny has proven a successful strategy. The most popular counterargument, that sexual orientation is a choice, remains convincing primarily to religious conservatives.

Address correspondence to Liahna E. Gordon, Department of Sociology, California State University, Chico, 615 Butte Hall, Chico, CA 95929-0445, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

495

496 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

This article offers a theoretical model that acknowledges biological potential while also going beyond simple environment arguments to look at complex and shifting social, political, and interpersonal contexts. While we argue that “choice” is primarily a factor with sexual identity labels, not sexual orientation per se, we pay significant attention to how the intrapsychic processes of interpretation and meaning-making play a key role in the devel- opment of both sexual orientation and sexual identity. Our work is entirely theoretical. Although we offer hypothetical examples, they are provided only to clarify our points; we leave it to others to collect empirical data to support or challenge our model. After a review of the literature on the develop- ment of sexual orientation and identity, we briefly discuss the three theories from which our model unfolds. We then provide an in-depth description of our theoretical model. We end with a discussion of why reparative therapy doesn’t work, in part to prevent our work form being misinterpreted, but primarily as a vehicle by which to further clarify and differentiate our work from the “choice” perspective.

Despite a legacy of sociological scholarship on issues of sexual ori- entation, sociologists have largely remained silent about its development. We propose this theoretical model not only to add a sociological perspec- tive, but also to encourage further interdisciplinary dialog that complicates the biology versus choice debate that predominates the popular discourse.

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Biological explanations for sexual orientation originally gained prominence in the 19th century. In 1864, Karl Ulrichs was among the first to posit that biology causes homosexuality. He claimed that we have two separate bio- logically determined sexes, a physical sex and a psychological one, and when they don’t “match,” homosexuality results (Kennedy, 1997). Richard von Krafft-Ebbing (1886/1904) built on Ulrich’s ideas, distinguishing two dif- ferent types of homosexuality: immoral perversity, which resulted from weak morals and should be punished by the courts, and the biologically prede- termined sickly perversion, which needed psychological treatment (Terry, 1999). Today’s biological explanations for sexual orientation developed from these early precursors.

Currently, biologists hypothesize that prenatal factors play a role in sexual orientation development (Balthazart, 2011; Bao & Swaab, 2011; Blanchard, Cantor, Bogaert, Breedlove, & Ellis, 2006). Some researchers sug- gest that the hormone endocrine, to which embryos are exposed in the womb, may influence sexual orientation (Balthazart, 2011). Others have iden- tified the role of other hormones during prenatal development, especially those that influence sex-specific development (Bao & Swaab, 2011), includ- ing testosterone (Hines, 2011). More complex explanations have suggested

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 497

that the same prenatal factors associated with handedness (the use of the left or right hand) and fraternal birth order may also influence the sexual orientation of gay men (Blanchard et al., 2006). The role that genetics poten- tially play in the development of sexual orientation in men (Bailey et al., 1999; Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Bocklandt, Horvath, Vilain, & Hamer, 2006; Dawood, Pillard, Horvath, Revelle, & Bailey, 2000; Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, & Pattatucci, 1993; Mustanski et al., 2005) and women (Bailey, Pillard, Neale, & Agyei, 1993) have also been identified. Other researchers have taken a more integrative approach, identifying mechanisms involving a com- bination of the developing brain, genetics, and hormones to explain sexual orientation (LeVay, 2011a). A variety of experiments have been performed on animals to test some of these explanations. For example, scientists have manipulated the transmission between synapses in fruit flies (Kitamoto, 2002) and have spliced genes in fruit flies (Demir & Dickson, 2005) to “turn on” same-sex behavior. Several studies have also been conducted on sheep, with researchers proposing a relationship between hormones and brain struc- ture in influencing the sheep’s sexual behavior (Roselli, Larkin, Schrunk, & Stormshak, 2004). A comprehensive overview of biological studies can be found in Simon LeVay’s (2011b) article. These studies explicitly or implicitly suggest that their results may offer insight into the causes of human sexual orientation.

The sheer number of studies seeking to uncover the link between biol- ogy and sexual orientation demonstrates the current ideological prominence of biological explanations. Characteristics involving female finger length (Williams et al., 2000), the inner ear (McFadden & Pasanen, 1998), penile size (Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999), eye blink startle responses (Rahman, Kumari, & Wilson, 2003), and preferences concerning underarm sweat odor (Schmidt, 2005) have been studied to identify some biological association with homosexuality.

Biological explanations generally do not take into account the fact that researchers do not agree on the definition of sexual orientation or how to measure it (Fausto-Sterling, 2012). Kinsey (1948) implemented a two-dimensional, 7-point scale ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual to describe sexual behaviors and desires. Shively and De Cecco (1977) identified physical and emotional preferences to sex- ual orientation, and they argued that homosexuality and heterosexuality were separate characteristics that did not influence one another. Klein, Sepekoff, and Wolf (1985), on the other hand, used seven dimensions for the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG), identifying sexual attractions, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, self-identification, and gay or heterosexual lifestyle as dimensions of sex- ual orientation. Since researchers cannot agree on how to measure sexual orientation, it remains difficult to accept any model that posits clearly identified causes for an outcome that we have been unable to define.

498 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

Furthermore, despite the plethora of research, there remains little con- sensus among biologists about the causes of sexual orientation—prenatal, hormonal, and genetic hypotheses continue to compete for predomi- nance in the field. Additionally, biological research usually studies only homosexuality, while ignoring bisexuality and using heterosexuality as if it were the “natural” or “normal” state that does not need explaining. While biological models may be useful in identifying possible biological potential for sexual orientation, we are unaware of any that account for the variation in how this potential gets shaped or expressed.1

Biological models also tend to neglect the social and psychological context in which sexual orientation develops (see Fausto-Sterling, 2012 and Tolman & Diamond, 2001 for exceptions). What a society defines as sexual orientation changes over time and across cultures (cf. Katz, 1995), and it is experienced and interpreted in different ways by different peo- ple. Additionally, life experiences, as well as social and historical context, may influence sexual orientation. Thus, biological explanations are often too simplistic in their conception of sexual orientation, and they remain poorly equipped to explain the range of phenomenological experiences of sexual orientation, as well as the role of life experience and social context in its development.

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLANATIONS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION

The prevailing counterargument in the popular media to notions of biolog- ical determinism is the idea that sexual orientation is a choice. Although political lesbians of the 1970s and, more recently, some queer activists have claimed that they actively choose their orientation, this idea actually seems to originally stem not from sexual minorities themselves, but from those try- ing to punish or cure them. Kraft-Ebbing’s (1886/1904) explanation of the two types of “perversion” provided support for both medical and legal inter- ventions. His definition of immoral perversity in particular gave credence to the idea that some individuals choose to be gay and should be pun- ished for it. There has been a strong resurgence of this orientation-as-choice model over the past two decades, and it has most often been linked not to the queer community but to religious and conservative movements that denounce homosexuality, perhaps as a response to the increasing inclusion of gay people from the 1960s to the 1990s (Christianson, 2005).

Arguments rooted in the claim that sexual orientation is a choice ignore that people possess a plethora of characteristics that are neither inborn nor determined by conscious will. Intelligence, for example, has been the subject of numerous studies, many of which have pointed to the role of childhood experiences in influencing intelligence. A recent study has suggested a link between IQ scores and education through the middle teen years (Brinch &

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 499

Galloway, 2012). Clearly, intelligence levels cannot be chosen, and research continues to point to the conclusion that environmental influences shape this biological potential. At the extreme end, tragic cases of “feral” children demonstrate that biological potential in the form of language, intelligence, and social interaction must necessarily be shaped by human contact and the social environment. Even seemingly simple characteristics such as taste pref- erences demonstrate the intersection of biology and environment. The ability to enjoy certain tastes is rooted in biology, but culture and environment influence which types of taste preferences are cultivated. Similarly, while we are all born with the potential to speak any language, it is our envi- ronment that will determine which language(s) we speak, including our ability to produce particular sounds that seem nearly impossible for non- native speakers to produce. Even bone strength and density, once thought to be determined mostly by race and sex, is influenced by environmental and cultural factors (Fausto-Sterling, 2005). That some traits and character- istics may have a biological foundation does not mean that they result in a predetermined outcome, but neither is conscious choice the driving force behind the development of these traits. Arguments about sexual orientation as a choice oversimplify an extremely complex phenomenon, while failing to recognize the interplay of biology with social and psychological forces.

While choice and biology are currently the most popular explanations in our culture for the development of sexual orientation, environmental expla- nations have also played a historically important role in such discourse. Psychoanalysis shaped social attitudes about homosexuals in the early and mid-1900s. Freud wrote that psychological issues, especially stunted psycho- logical development or psychological regression, may cause homosexuality (Drescher, 1998). Other psychoanalysts believed that homosexuality was traceable to the role of parents in childhood and may stem from an over- bearing mother and a distant father (for gay men), or a hostile mother and a father who masculinized his daughter (for lesbian women) (Socarides, 1992; Schilder, as cited in Martin, 1993). Still other psychoanalysts posited that homosexuality affected overanxious individuals who feared the opposite sex because their parents tried to restrict their sexual activity as children (Rado, as cited in Drescher, 1998). In all of these cases, homosexuality was posited as the result of psychological development gone awry due to poor parenting. Such explanations dominated scientific discourse about the causes of homosexuality until the late 20th century, when the influence of psychoanalytic thought waned.

MODELS OF SEXUAL IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

More current research on the psycho-social aspects of the development of sexual orientation has been sparse, with researchers instead focusing

500 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

more extensively on the development of sexual identity rather than sex- ual orientation, perhaps because it is less complex as well as less politically risky. Sexual orientation and sexual identity, however, are separate (though related) phenomena. We define sexual orientation as a combination of attrac- tions, behaviors, thoughts, feelings, and fantasies. Sexual identity, on the other hand, refers to the label we attach to ourselves to indicate to others our sexual orientation. Models of sexual identity development rarely address how sexual orientation itself actually develops, and often operate under two assumptions: that sexual orientation is an ingrained, unchanging aspect of one’s sexuality, and that sexual identity development is merely the natural step to “discovering” one’s true orientation, especially for those attracted to the same sex (Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995). Hence it is assumed that sexual orientation itself does not change, but the awareness and labeling of it does.

Some of the most well-developed sexual identity literature uses the stage-model approach to account for sexual identity formation, which posits that an individual progresses through a series of steps to claim a gay iden- tity. While important differences exist between each model, as Minton and McDonald (1984) explained, three main stages generally appear in stage- model approaches: a stage in which an individual undergoes experiences that provide personal “evidence” for the appropriateness of a gay identity; a stage during which the development of that identity is complicated by the internalization of heteronormative ideology; and a stage in which an individual establishes a well-adjusted gay identity. Little research has been conducted on heterosexual identities, revealing a heteronormative bias in the literature.

The identification of distinct stages or phases implies a certain sequential linearity on the developmental path to a healthy and accurate identity. Cass’s (1979) six-step model and Coleman’s (1982) five-step model of identity for- mation exemplify this linear process: an individual necessarily completes one stage and moves on to the next, unless they become trapped in a stage, prohibiting them from progressing. Troiden (1988) took a different approach, acknowledging that identity development is not linear and can- not be defined by progression or regression, but identified four stages that roughly correspond to a life cycle timeline, ultimately implying a form of lin- earity. Fassinger and Miller’s (1996) two-pronged, four-stage model noted the flexibility of each phase and the importance of contextual issues in determin- ing development, but it, too, emphasized the accomplishment of a certain progression in order to establish an “accurate” sexual identity. Using lin- ear models for sexual identity development ignores the diversity of human experience as well as variations in sexual histories and identities (Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000), despite the fact that many people take alternate pathways to sexual identity development (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996).

While understanding how sexual identity develops is important in its own right, we argue that it should not be used as a proxy for the

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 501

development of sexual orientation. Identity labels are constructed and change over time for individuals (Hammack, Thompson, & Pilecki, 2009) as well as within cultures (Katz, 1995). As such, they provide an inappro- priate benchmark for the analysis of sexual orientation, including attractions and behaviors. The use of sexual identity labels may obscure attractions and behaviors that do not fit with conventional identity labels of heterosexual, bisexual, and gay (Diamond, 2003a, 2005; Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000). Rust (1992) found that women’s understanding of the meaning of specific identity labels influenced which labels those women applied to themselves. She found that a major difference between bisexual and lesbian women was the differing emphasis they gave to sexual attractions and current sexual behavior when applying sexual identity labels, with lesbians emphasizing current behavior and bisexuals emphasizing sexual attraction. Kitzinger and Wilkinson (1995) also noted that stereotypes about lesbianism influenced some women’s likelihood of taking on that sexual identity. Sexuality is more complex than sexual identity labels suggest, and individual interpretation of these labels dictates how people experience this complexity and ultimately identify themselves.

The social constructionist literature provides an alternative approach to sexual orientation and sexual identity development. This approach critiques linear developmental pathways as too simplistic to account for the com- plexity of sexual identity development for all individuals (D’Augelli, 1994; Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000; Hammack, Thompson, & Pilecki, 2009; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995). For example, Kitzinger and Wilkinson (1995) explained that the women they interviewed did not just “discover” them- selves after a period of denial, and they noted that “becoming a lesbian often meant reinterpreting the[ir] experiences within a different framework” (p. 102). As these findings suggest, sexual orientation and identity are not necessarily subject to a singular process of self-discovery by individuals. Rather, the continued interpretation and reinterpretation of experiences may lead to shifts in sexual identity (cf. Diamond, 2003b) and orientation. This process continues throughout life as social context changes (D’Augelli, 1994; Rust 1996), precluding the inevitability of permanently established orienta- tions (D’Augelli, 1994) or identities (D’Augelli, 1994; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995). To capture its complexity, social constructionists often consider sex- ual orientation as a multidimensional process rather than as a static trait, developed not along one path but many, reflecting the variability between individuals and experiences.

A NEW PARADIGM: THE SEXUAL LANDSCAPE IN THE LITERATURE

Rust’s (1996) study of bisexual women provides a social construction- ist account of sexual identity development. She recognized a variety of

502 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

environmental and social factors that may lead to shifts in sexual identity, and that identity development may continue throughout life. To explain why bisexual identities seem to change so easily, Rust conceptualized sexuality not as existing along a continuum but on a sexual landscape. After inter- viewing bisexual women, she determined that the changes they made in their identities were not because bisexuality is merely a transitional iden- tity on the way to lesbianism, or that the bisexual women she interviewed were confused, as is sometimes popularly believed. Based on interview data, she used grounded theory to develop the sexual landscape model as a way of encompassing these women’s experiences. She argued that bisexual women’s identities can change because their position on the sexual land- scape changes. In other words, while their internal feelings and attractions did not necessarily change, their relationships with individuals and com- munities, their social contexts, the sexual politics of the time period, and the language available for describing themselves did. She describes a phys- ical, relational, and ideological environment that is constantly shifting, an environment that she calls the sexual landscape. As the women’s physical environment changed, as their sexual and nonsexual relationships changed, as they created new romantic and social relationships, and as the political and historical context changed, the ways that the women made sense of and explained their sexual identities also changed.

In the decades since Rust’s work was published, her research has influ- enced social constructionist works on sexual identity. Many authors have incorporated her ideas about the importance of social context, historical time period, culture, and personal engagement with sexual identity into their anal- ysis of this phenomenon (cf. Deverell & Prout, 1998; Hammack, Thompson, & Pilecki, 2009; McElwain, Grimes, & McVicker, 2009). Few researchers, how- ever, have utilized the framework of the sexual landscape. We believe this concept is underutilized and has enormous potential for future research.

Rust carefully emphasized identity—she did not address sexual orienta- tion per se. Additionally, she focused on changes to identity rather than its initial development, and although her model encompassed what she called monosexuals (heterosexuals and homosexuals), she particularly focused on bisexual identities. Building on Rust’s concept of a sexual landscape, we provide a multidimensional approach to both sexual orientation and sex- ual identity development. We seek to reconcile human agency with active and shifting influences in social contexts. We aim to offer a comprehen- sive model that recognizes the inherent complexity of environmental factors while acknowledging the role that biological potential plays. We borrow and expand on Rust’s insights to explain how sexual orientations and sexual identities develop and change (or remain stable). We ground our model in the insights of three compatible and related theoretical perspectives, each having their own intellectual histories, literatures, and adherents: social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, and scripting theory.

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 503

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

Social constructionist theory posits that much of what we take to be innate, natural, true, and self-evident actually results from social forces. Collectively, societies create many of the “truths” by which we live. Social constructionists often focus specifically on the ways in which we categorize people (based for instance on sex, gender, race, and sexual orientation). While people in our culture generally take for granted that, for example, only two genders naturally exist, social constructionists seek to demonstrate that this is not an inherent truth but a culturally sustained belief. They do this by deconstructing the categories: demonstrating that these categories do not always hold up. They especially look across cultures and historical time periods to find alternative systems of categorization that challenge these taken-for-granted beliefs. In regard to gender, they cite cultures that have third gender cate- gories, such as the hijra in India (Nanda, 1985), the berdache among some North American Native Americans (Callender & Kochems, 1993), the kathoey of Thailand (Nanda, 1999), and the xanith of Oman (Wikan, 1977). In each of these cases, the native culture considers the third gender either “not- man-not-woman” or “both man-and-woman” and socially recognizes it as a distinct gender (Nanda, 1999).

Some people perceive that social constructionists discount biology. In fact, social constructionists consider biology an important part of sexu- ality, but they do not see it as deterministic. They argue that while biology shapes both individuals and culture, the reverse is also highly important: culture strongly shapes biology (Padgug, 1992). Examples of this include the nearly 51/2 inch height increase among Japanese men (and even greater for Japanese women) since World War II. There are different hypotheses for why this occurred, but research suggests changes in lifestyle may be responsible, including higher rates of urbanization (Matsumoto, 1982) and shifting dietary patterns (Takahashi, 1984). Similarly, the increasingly early onset of puberty in the United States—the average age of puberty has decreased by as much as 11/2 years in one generation—does not yet have a proven cause. Research suggests exposure to certain chemicals from plastics, cosmetics, and other products may cause hormonal changes (Mouritsen et al., 2010), while other researchers point to stress or higher levels of body fat contributing to earlier development (Walvoord, 2010). In all these cases, cultural changes and pat- terns of consumption affect a key physiological process (which, of course, has further cultural implications). A third example is that of premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Chrisler and Caplan (2002) have found that while women in many different cultures report having some physical changes in their bod- ies prior to menstruating, the form those changes take vary significantly across cultures. In China, for example, increased sensitivity to cold is a major symptom of PMS, but irritability is not (Chrisler & Caplan, 2002). Regarding sexuality, then, social constructionists see the relationship between sexuality,

504 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

biology, and culture as one in which sexuality is a biological potential that is influenced by culture. Leonore Tiefer (1995) described sexuality as similar to Jell-O: a biological potential that can take any shape or form, but which is poured into a cultural mold where it takes shape and sets. Hence, while not ignoring the role of biology, social constructionists posit sexuality as culturally and historically bound, with culture having a tremendous impact not only on what we do sexually but also on what we feel, perceive, and interpret about our sexuality (cf. Weeks, 2003; Katz, 1995; McIntosh, 1968; Seidman, 2003).

From a social constructionist perspective, sexual orientation is not an inner essence but a constellation of attractions, thoughts, feelings, and behav- iors that are culturally perceived as significant in differentiating “types” of sexuality. Our systems of categorization are not the inevitable result of either biological differences or sexual preferences. Rather, we have many biological differences but give social importance only to particular characteristics while ignoring thousands of other differences, including how quickly we orgasm, how often we orgasm, the size of our genitalia, our levels of fertility, the strength of our sexual drive, and our hormonal levels. In addition, there are scads of other sexual preferences along which we vary: time of day we like to have sex, our desires to be monogamous or non-monogamous, our pref- erences for the age of our partner, the sexual acts that arouse us, whether we tend to be sexually assertive or passive, kinky or vanilla, prefer to use fantasy or to stay present in the moment (Gordon & Abbott, 2002). Sexual orientation is but one difference among many, but we come to see ourselves as a type of person different from other types of people based on the gender of our sex partners because our culture places importance on this, while regarding how quickly we orgasm, the time of day we like to have sex, or the sex acts that turn us on as relatively unimportant (Sedgwick, 1990). Because the gender of our partner is culturally important, it becomes part of our identity and therefore a major organizing principle of our lives. Thus although sexual orientation is not, from a constructionist perspective, an inner essence, it does indeed feel like a core part of ourselves, and we expe- rience it as such. To quote W. I. and D. S. Thomas (1928), this is because “if men [sic] define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (p. 572). Thus social constructions have significant consequences for our lives, including our thoughts, feelings, social status, interpersonal relations, and location within the social structure. Furthermore, social constructions are not arbitrary but are the result of particular historical, political, economic, and cultural forces.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Symbolic interactionism is consistent with the basic premises of social constructionism, but it has a different focus.2 Rather than concentrating on

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 505

the constructions themselves and how they arose or on meaning at the cul- tural level, symbolic interactionists focus instead more on interaction and the negotiation of meaning between individuals. While multiple strains of sym- bolic interactionism have developed (for an overview, see Herman-Kinney & Reynolds, 2003), they all fundamentally posit that people continually create their social world through the process of interaction. Nothing has an inher- ent meaning; instead, meanings are negotiated through interaction (Blumer, 1969). Even biological events and feelings must be given meaning: what some people interpret as pain may be interpreted by others as pleasure; what some experience as fear others may experience as arousing. These dif- ferences of interpretation may give rise to entire subcultures or identities, such as those seen within the BDSM3 community. These meanings are not just assigned by the individual but are shared, transmitted, and negotiated. Thus meaning is a product of interaction with others.

Symbolic interactionists assume that we not only experience the out- side world but also can reflect on it. Likewise, we can reflect on our own selves, including our feelings, behaviors, and self-presentations, and through such reflection we attach meanings to them (Mead, 1934). We transmit these meanings to others through interaction, but we also negotiate them with oth- ers through this interaction. Our sense of self comes not primarily from our own self-reflections but from how we think others see us (Cooley, 1902). We project our sense of self to others in interaction, and they, in turn, can accept, reject, reinforce, challenge, or alter the meanings that we give to our- selves, and this further affects how we think and feel about ourselves, the identities we claim for ourselves, and the behaviors in which we engage.

SCRIPTING THEORY

Gagnon and Simon’s scripting theory (1973) is consistent with both social constructionism and symbolic interactionism, but it was developed specifi- cally to address sexuality and to explain why, if we are all exposed to the same set of cultural meanings and norms for behavior (sexual scripts), we do not have identical sexual behaviors. Scripting theory maintains that in actuality, we do not all get exposed to the same sexual scripts in the same measure. The more diverse the society, the greater the diversity in sexual scripts. Virtually everyone in our culture is exposed to competing scripts in varying degrees. In the case of premarital sex, for example, people may be exposed to scripts that maintain that premarital sex is dangerous, that mar- riage doesn’t matter as long as you love the person with whom you have sex, and that sex is purely recreational, meant to be fun and pleasurable regard- less of marital status. Although we may all be exposed to all of these scripts (among others), our social, familial, and cultural context emphasize some of these scripts more strongly than others, and the ones that receive emphasis will vary by our ethnicity, gender, religion, social class, generational cohort,

506 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

geographic region, and so forth. The same individual may be exposed to different scripts in different contexts: young Chicanas, for example, may get strong scripts promoting abstinence until marriage at home, church, and school but may get sexually permissive scripts from friends, the media, and romantic partners. Thus as individuals we do not just take in these scripts and comply, but must process, evaluate, weigh, and interpret these scripts through psychological processes. Sometimes these intrapsychic processes are subconscious; other times, we consciously attempt to understand or inter- pret someone else’s behaviors or intentions, trying on different scenarios in our mind, imagining different outcomes, fantasizing about situations, men- tally rehearsing interaction and behavior, and asking others for their advice and interpretations, which we further weigh and evaluate. Ultimately, these intrapsychic processes decide our behavior, which we play out in interper- sonal contexts. Our interactions with others, during which we play out these decisions, can change, challenge, or reinforce our decisions and/or introduce us to new sexual scripts, which further affect our decisions and interpreta- tions. In fact, we consistently change our decisions and interpretations as we learn through experience, as we get introduced to new people and contexts with sexual scripts different from our own and as sexual scripts change over time. All of these leave our behavior open to change as well.

Social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, and scripting theory, each with its particular emphasis and insights, form the foundation of our model. We add onto this Rust’s notion of the sexual landscape in order to specify the mechanisms of sexual orientation and identity development at both the macro and micro levels. What follows is our theory of the develop- ment of sexual orientation and sexual identity. Please note that we provide examples to illustrate and clarify our points, but these are not based on empirical data.

THE SEXUAL LANDSCAPE

Rust (1996) never actually defined the sexual landscape, but she did indicate that she thinks of it as a three-dimensional, rather than linear, conception of sexuality (as opposed, for example, to Kinsey, who proposed the two- dimensional linear continuum). We think of the sexual landscape as the context in which we operate. This includes the biographical, interpersonal, social, cultural, political, and historical context in which we each live and travel. It includes the multiplicity of ideologies and discourses to which we are exposed, as well as social institutions and structural relations. It involves the people to whom we feel close, the people we barely know but with whom we come into contact, the physical and social environment in which we live and work, and the social movements and historical events that influence us. All of these shape the landscape and simultaneously act as

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 507

landmarks on it. The landscape metaphor encourages us to go beyond think- ing about a “social environment,” which is too easily imagined as monolithic and stagnant. Instead, we envision people interactively moving around on the landscape, continually moving closer to some landmarks and, therefore, further from others. We each relate to the landscape and engage with it; we are not separate from it, but ourselves also act as a landmark for others. As we move, our position on the landscape changes, affecting not only the scripts to which we become exposed but also the degree of emphasis they receive, with the most emphasized scripts usually coming from the landmarks to which we are closest. For example, if a middle-class White man starts dat- ing a woman, he suddenly directs his behavior toward a new person and gauges her responses. This adds a significant new landmark on his sexual landscape, one to which he continually puts himself in reference. “What does she expect? Does she like me as much as I like her?” In addition, it changes his relationship to other landmarks: “What will my parents think of her? My friends?” He may begin to hang out less with his own friends, making them somewhat less important landmarks, at least temporarily, while meeting her friends, which add new landmarks onto his sexual landscape. If she has sim- ilar scripts to his, his behaviors and interpretations may not change markedly despite the appearance of these new landmarks. If she has different scripts than his, his behavior and interpretations may change dramatically. If she has promised to remain sexually abstinent before marriage, for example, but he has fallen madly in love with her, he may begin to understand both sex and abstinence differently and may change his sexual advances and behavior accordingly. If she, on the other hand, greatly enjoys sexual experimentation and thus introduces him to new activities, positions, or techniques, this may also radically change his behaviors and interpretations, affecting his fantasies, feelings about sex and relationships, and even his sense of identity.

Not only does our location on the landscape change, but the landscape itself constantly changes. Social movements and historical events continu- ally reshape the landscape, as does the movement of other people on the landscape. A working-class White woman who grew up in a conservative East Coast fishing town that transforms itself into a left-leaning tourist des- tination will witness the shifting of the landscape. The interpersonal, social, and ideological composition of the town will change dramatically over the course of the town’s transition, exposing the woman to new discourses, ideas, and possibilities she had previously never considered. Even as her physical location remains unchanged, new people traveling to and settling in her hometown will markedly shift the landscape that she occupies. As she befriends newcomers, they may expose her to new lenses through which to consider different approaches to sexual activity, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and relationships. Her own view about each of these subjects and her relation to them could shift substantially, or her prior scripts may be reinforced.

508 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

The landscape maintains basic characteristics for everyone, yet looks different in the details for each person. We each see different landmarks, and they hold different importance to us. A large looming landmark on one person’s landscape may be nothing but a small molehill, or not even visi- ble, to another. Consider a gathering of friends engaging in a conversation about sexuality. A person in the group who identifies as straight asks her gay friends how they know they are gay. They turn the question back to her, asking her how she knows she is straight. To most of the individuals gathered, this question comprises an insignificant feature of the sexual land- scape. To the middle-class White woman who asked the question, it becomes a massive landmark with significant and far-reaching implications. The high- lighting of her own sexual orientation brings her sexuality to the forefront and nudges her to question her own assumptions and interpretations about herself as a sexual being. The self-reflection that follows results in her rejec- tion of her prior assumption that she must be heterosexual. She reinterprets her relationships with women and begins recognizing attractions to them, which begins to affect both her fantasies and her desires, thereby shifting her sexual orientation. Soon after, she begins identifying as bisexual. While another friend from the group questions his sexual orientation but eventually reaffirms his prior identity, the others present forget about the conversation soon after they leave the house. What was important to one person on the sexual landscape posed little or no significance for the next.

As we travel geographically, we may come across landscapes that are radically different from those in which we have previously moved. Consider the case of a middle-class Latina high school student transitioning to a university in another city. By changing her physical location, she enters a new sexual landscape. New interpersonal contacts expose her to alter- native lifestyles, sexual identities, and avenues of sexual expression, while her classes expose her to ideologies and discussions she had never before considered. All of these are, of course, influenced by the social and polit- ical milieu of the times. Topics of conversation, what is legal, and what is socially permissible will all have an effect on her. These are tied to the new identities, actions, and beliefs that have now become available for her to incorporate into her life—all of these elements influencing her are inextrica- bly connected. Upon moving to college, not only does her sexual landscape change, but the salient landmarks by which she understands herself shift as well. These new elements in her landscape influence her thoughts, percep- tions, interpretations, and behaviors. With each new exposure to another part of the sexual landscape, her view of the landscape will morph, even as her own movement shifts the landscape for others. Her high school friend who attends the same university will move within the same sexual landscape, but he will likely view and interpret it differently, having different interpretations of contextual elements of the landscape and different landmarks by which

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 509

to judge himself. The sexual landscape is a dynamic phenomenon, and the lens through which we see it differs from person to person.

While changes to the sexual landscape are important, they in and of themselves do not necessarily cause changes to identity or orientation; it is our interpretation of these changes to the landscape that are paramount. In other words, there are three steps to the process: we experience an event, process, or internal state; we interpret that experience; and the interpretation either challenges our identity or orientation, which may cause a shift in either of these, or our interpretation reinforces our current identity or orientation, which therefore remain stable. In any given situation, it is our interpretation of ourselves, our interpretations of landmarks on the landscape, and our interpretation of our relationship to those landmarks that are crucial. These interpretations determine sexual orientation and sexual identity. Our inter- pretations of different landmarks will determine what kind of shift in sexual orientation or sexual identity, if any, we will experience, and to what degree.

We make interpretations not only of the landscape but also of our biological events. Biological potential forms the underpinning of the sex- ual landscape. We are born with the potential to make interpretations, feel attractions, engage in sexual behaviors, experience arousal, have orgasms, and fantasize. This potential is continually shaped and molded by the land- scape. Furthermore, biological potential in the form of nerves and erotic regions of the body make certain interpretations more likely than others. For example, we are much more likely to interpret stimulation to the genitals as pleasure than as displeasure, but interpretations of those physical sensations are crucial. Those who have been sexually molested or abused, for example, may experience certain forms of genital arousal as physically uncomfortable, emotionally terrifying, or even shameful but satisfying. In regard to social context, people who have been taught that masturbation is a healthy activity may interpret the physical sensations it produces as enjoyable, whereas indi- viduals who views it as sinful may actually have a negative physical reaction to it, such as an upset stomach brought on by shame and guilt. Additionally, people with debilitating physical conditions, such as paraplegics and stroke survivors, may reinterpret sensations in other parts of their body as sexu- ally stimulating after losing feeling in their genitals. All people are born with biological potential, and the ways in which we experience this potential will vary based on our interpretations, even if some interpretations are more likely for certain feelings or acts than others.

The biological potential for sexual attraction is another foundation of the sexual landscape. We are all born with the potential to feel attractions, and more specifically with the potential to feel attracted to others regardless of their sex. The sexual landscape influences how we experience this poten- tial and how it gets molded. In other societies and in other time periods, exclusively opposite-sex attractions are far from the norm. Sambian boys

510 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

from Papua New Guinea perform fellatio on tribesmen as part of a masculin- ization ritual (Herdt, 1984). Some women in Lesotho have deeply intimate friendships with other women that involve erotic or sexual acts; these friend- ships coexist with opposite-sex marriages (Gay, 1993). Upper-class Greek men in ancient times viewed the love that men feel for women and boys as less noble than the love that men feel for other free men (Katz, 1995). While it is true that other societies and time periods define and experience sexuality and sexual orientation differently than do we in the contemporary Western world, these examples raise an interesting point: given that same-sex relations are common and even expected in different cultural and temporal contexts, exclusive heterosexuality is not a universal norm. Rather, our con- text and experiences shape sexuality, attraction, and sexual orientation, not only in form but also in content.

That heterosexuality predominates in American culture is less a func- tion of biological predetermination than a reflection of how societies shape sexual orientation through heteronormativity. Expectations about normal (hetero)sexuality influence the form this sexuality will take. These internal- ized expectations influence not only how sexuality is perceived but also how it is experienced and labeled. Furthermore, these norms influence what we consider to be attraction and arousal, and in so doing they influence how we experience, perceive, label, categorize, explain, and act on these feelings. Cultural context is by no means determinative, of course; it is an important part of the sexual landscape, and one that may yield great influence on individuals. So while people are born with the potential to be attracted to a variety of sexes, their experiences and context will influence how this potentiality is expressed and maintained. In some societies, such as Sambia or Lesotho, the norm is closer to what we may in the United States consider to be bisexuality, but this is not evidence of bisexual genes existing in these societies; it points to a sexual potential that has been molded by culture.

DEVELOPMENT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION

In our conceptualization, the interpretive sexual landscape model takes as its starting point that people are born with a biological potential for sexual orientation, which is always and continually being shaped by the land- scape in which they find themselves. As people interact with one another, they produce and negotiate meaning, thereby learning to interpret not only the actions of others but also their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Because such meanings are developed through interaction, the same internal experiences may be interpreted differently by different people, in different contexts, and in different time periods. Even biological conditions and events have to be interpreted to have meaning, as shown by Becker’s (1953) semi- nal work on how people have to learn to get high on marijuana: they must

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 511

learn from others how to identify particular sensations in their body, to inter- pret those sensations as feeling good, and to produce the resultant behavior that signals that they are “high.”

In the case of sexual orientation, we must learn first that there is such a thing as orientation, and then identify reactions within ourselves—both physical and psychological—as being sexual in nature. We have to learn, for example, what desire, arousal, and attraction feel like and how to interpret the difference between those and admiring, wanting to be like, wanting to associate with, and being attracted to, another person (Diamond & Savin- Williams, 2000). Likewise, we have to learn to identify and differentiate excitement, fear, and arousal. All of these are complex, and they involve a combination of physical, mental, and emotional changes and happenings that must get interpreted and assigned meaning. Our sexual landscape will have an impact on this: which physical, psychological, and emotional hap- penings we notice, how we experience them, and what meanings we give them will all be affected by our position on the landscape. It will also affect the relative importance we give to these happenings as we use those inter- pretations to further interpret something about ourselves. As interpretations get made, they build on one another—past interpretations and meanings influence future ones. This is how sexual orientation develops: we make sense of our feelings, thoughts, and behaviors, and we give them meaning. This influences our future thoughts, attractions, and behaviors, which con- tinue to build on each other. For example, two individuals may experience similar emotions for a mutual friend, but as one identifies that feeling as a sign of admiration, the other interprets it as a sign of attraction. The former individual’s interpretation will pose no significance for her attractions. At the same time, the latter individual may begin to interpret many similar emotions as feelings of attraction and may even reinterpret prior or existing feelings toward other people also as attraction as a result. In other words, these inter- pretations will influence the identification of similar emotions and will form a framework on which a sexual orientation is constructed.

Because we live in a heteronormative society, the particular physi- cal, emotional, and psychological happenings we notice are often focused around difference; we are most likely to consciously notice the happenings that we perceive to be different from the physical, emotional, and psycholog- ical happenings we imagine (or are told) others experience. The meanings we attach to these happenings will also be affected by heteronormativity, such that we will either define the feelings and other happenings we notice as fitting into the category “normal” or as being “different.” Those of us who perceive our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to be different from those of others may eventually consciously interrogate our sexual orientation.

In a heteronormative society, those of us who perceive ourselves as somehow sexually different from others may have developed this perception for a variety of reasons: other people have told us that we are different; we

512 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

may have witnessed the labeling of someone else’s expressions of thoughts and feelings that we perceive as similar to our own; or we may ourselves perceive that our feelings differ from those of other people. In actuality, however, there is no evidence that this perception of difference is a marker of actual difference. We may mark a particular feeling and believe that others don’t feel it, and then give that the meaning of “difference.” Whether or not others do feel it is not actually determined. In other words, it may be the interpretation of the feeling, not the actual presence of the feeling, which dif- fers. It may be, for example, that many kids have feelings that they interpret as “being best friends” or “looking up to someone,” while other children interpret that same experience as “having a crush” or “being in love.” We have no way of knowing how qualitatively similar or different those feelings are, only how people interpret and label them.

Not all of the interpretations we make related to sexual orientation must be explicitly sexual. Gendered behaviors, for example, are not necessar- ily sexual, but they may be interpreted as such (Troiden, 1988; Plummer, 1996). When we engage in gender-atypical behavior, especially in an ongo- ing way, others may tell us that we are gay because of the popular association between gender nonconformity and homosexuality. Such assumptions may influence our own interpretations and thus our sexual identity. As Plummer (1996) said, “In each of these early social experiences, a potential base is created for a subsequent sexual interpretation” (p. 71). Through this process, past experiences may be reinterpreted as sexual, and sexual interpretations may be made of experiences that are not inherently sexual (Plummer, 1996). The interpretations and reinterpretations of these experiences at later times— not just the experiences themselves—may influence whether one considers a gay identity appropriate (Troiden, 1988). As we move around the land- scape, the link between our non-normative gendered behavior and our sexual orientation may get reinforced for us, although there is no inher- ent relationship between gender presentation and sexual orientation. If we interpret it as significant to our sexual orientation or sexual identity, then it becomes significant.

Even in areas of the landscape where homosexuality and bisexuality are invalidated or marginalized, the sexual landscape does not prevent us from interpreting our thoughts and feelings as different from the norm. Rather, the many different interpretations we can make are a function of the complexity of the landscape. In parts of the landscape where gay and bisexual orienta- tions are ignored or discouraged, the act of perceiving difference between ourselves and those around us is a powerful mechanism. In unsupportive contexts, these perceived differences may take on a greater significance to us, leading us to perceive them as significant aspects of ourselves, even if (or because) we live in fear of others discovering or labeling those differences (Plummer, 1996). In supportive environments, the perception of difference can challenge an assumed heterosexuality.

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 513

Those of us who do not perceive ourselves as being in some way dif- ferent from the sexual norm are often somewhat oblivious to the attractions, thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that get described as sexual orientation. While certainly aware of attractions and sexual feelings, we are less likely to conceptualize them as sexual orientation per se, and instead as simply sexual. The heteronormative landscape keeps us assuming that only those different from the norm need to “figure out” their sexual orientation; the rest of us are simply and automatically (hetero)sexual. We may have our oblivion toward sexual orientation challenged, however, if and when the landscape brings us into contact with people who have claimed non-normative sex- ual orientations. Contact with those who have interrogated their orientation may highlight differences that lead us to become newly conscious of the thoughts, feelings, attractions, and behaviors that we no longer define as just sexual, but now as sexual orientation. Thus, a middle-class African American woman who identifies as heterosexual may meet same-sex attracted women and begin to consciously consider her attractions toward men as not only sexual, but specifically as heterosexual.

Intersecting identities are another major factor affecting the develop- ment of and changes to sexual orientation. Race, ethnicity, social class, gender, age, religion, physical ability, and other dimensions of our identi- ties come together, influencing our sexual orientation in a variety of ways. Collins (2004) demonstrated that race, gender, social class, and sexuality are inextricably linked for people of all sexual orientations. We argue that this intersectionality specifically affects sexual orientation in five key ways: the landmarks with which we come into contact; how we feel when we come into contact with them; the physical, emotional, and psychological happen- ings we notice upon contact; how we interpret these internal phenomena; and how we express them.

One way intersectionality may influence our experiences is by affecting the landmarks with which we will most likely come into contact. People of different races, ethnicities, ages, genders, religions, and physical abilities may meet and associate with different people, take part in different activities, tune into different media, worship in different ways, live in different neigh- borhoods, and work in different occupations. Thus our identities affect where and how we move on the landscape and the landmarks we are most likely to encounter on it. Two queer faculty members at the same university will share many landmarks, but if they are of different races and genders, they will also likely have many unshared landmarks that affect their individual experiences. Additionally, even when the landscape is shared, intersection- ality may affect which landmarks we notice. Two Black queer faculty with a 25-year age difference may have different propensities to notice queer students in their classes, pay attention to different social issues, and notice different forms of prejudice and discrimination. Thus intersecting identities

514 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

play a key role in shaping our landscapes and in affecting the landmarks with which we are most likely to come into contact.

Second, our intersecting identities may cause us to interpret some land- marks as more meaningful or relevant than others. Although we sometimes see the same landmarks as other people, we may interpret the importance of these landmarks differently because of our different identities. A devout Catholic and a staunch atheist may both hear about “rogue” priests that espouse more accepting views of same-sex attraction. To a Catholic, this news is an important landmark that may influence the way he perceives his own sexual attractions and behavior. To an atheist, on the other hand, this landmark is forgotten almost as soon as it is encountered, rendering it irrele- vant to her. Although both have come into contact with this new landmark, only one interprets it as important because of his religious identity.

Third, intersectionality may influence our experiences by affecting not only which landmarks we notice and deem important but also which phys- ical, emotional, and psychological happenings we notice. We constantly encounter new landmarks on the sexual landscape, and each time we have a physiological or mental response. These responses vary in intensity and per- ceived importance, but they are nonetheless present. Which ones we notice will be influenced by our identities. Consider a middle-class Latino man who identifies as heterosexual. He is attracted to both men and women. When he experiences a feeling he interprets as attraction to the same sex, he instantly recognizes it. Although he is disgusted with himself for having these feelings toward other men and tries to ignore them, the very fact that he is troubled by them makes them more noticeable. He considers these attractions incom- patible with his identity as a masculine Latino Catholic man. As a result, every time he feels attracted to another man he is hyperaware of this feel- ing. In this way, his identities influence which happenings he detects within himself.

Fourth, intersectionality will not only affect the internal happenings we notice but will also affect how we interpret them. Even if two people encounter the same landmark and experience the same feeling in response, their identities may affect the way they interpret this feeling. The difference lies in the interpretations of the feelings, not the feelings themselves. Race, class, gender, age and other nonsexual identities can have tremendous influ- ence on how we interpret our internal happenings. A younger single woman may interpret a longing to be physically affectionate with another woman as sexual desire, while a middle-aged married woman may interpret it as falling in love, and an older widow as closeness between friends. This interpretation of our feelings, desires, behaviors, and attractions is key to the development of our sexual orientation.

Last, intersectionality influences how we express ourselves based on these interpretations. If we recognize our own same-sex attractions but fear that they are incompatible with our ethnicity, social class, or religion, we

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 515

may choose to not express them or to express them only clandestinely. Alternately, we may choose to express them openly, but with the hopes of changing hearts and minds in our other identity communities. We may even express them as a symbol of rejection of one or more of those communities.

DEVELOPMENT OF SEXUAL IDENTITY

While we define sexual orientation as the constellation of our sexual attrac- tions, thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and behaviors and our interpretations of those things, we define sexual identity, on the other hand, as the available label we choose that identifies our sexual orientation to ourselves and to others. It is, in fact, an interpretation or sense-making of the constellation of sexual thoughts, behaviors, attractions, feelings, and fantasies that we have condensed into a single culturally available label. While sexual orientation is what we feel and experience, sexual identity is a shorthand way of repre- senting to ourselves and to the world who we are and what we like sexually. On the sexual landscape, we are confronted with a variety of sexual iden- tities available for the taking. The landscape itself, and one’s location on it, will affect which identities are available for claiming. Additionally, we make interpretations of those identities.

Sexual identity is influenced by a range of identities and constructs exist- ing on the landscape, including race and gender constructs. For example, there are populations of White heterosexual-identified men who have sex with or engage in erotic activities with men similar to themselves, which Ward (2008) calls “str8” men. These men believe that these activities—within commonly accepted boundaries, such as rejecting femininity and talking about attractions to women—reinforce White heterosexual masculinity. Their participation in White heterosexual culture, not their sex acts with other men, forms the underpinnings of their identity (Ward, 2008). Other groups of heterosexual-identified men also view some same-sex erotic behaviors, expressed within tightly defined parameters, as coexisting with masculin- ity and heterosexuality (Anderson, 2008). Some (especially Black or Latino) men who have sex with men in secret identify themselves as heterosexual or bisexual men on the down-low (Wolitski, Jones, Wasserman, & Smith, 2006). The self-application of sexual identity labels is influenced not only by individual interpretation but also by standards of masculinity and femininity, gender, and race, as well as by a multitude of other identities, environmental and cultural contexts, and social constructs.

How cultures, social institutions, and individuals define sexual orienta- tion is an important part of the landscape, and it affects the development of sexual identity. Not everyone shares the same definition of orientation— some believe that attractions are paramount, while others focus almost exclusively on sexual behavior. This explains why, for example, the sexual

516 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

identities of certain populations of men who have sex with men in Mexico are influenced more by their role as a top or as a bottom (activo/pasivo) than by their partner’s gender (Almaguer, as cited in Cantú Jr., 2009). As we grow up in the sexual landscape, we learn how to define sexual orientation based on local definitions, which will affect not only our own definition of sexual orientation generally, and our own sexual orientation in particular, but also the meanings we give to the thoughts, behaviors, attractions, and feelings that we define (or do not define) as sexual orientation. In other words, it will affect our sexual identity. Thus, an upper-class Latino man who feels similar attractions to both men and women may nonetheless identify as gay because he places greater emphasis on the attractions to men. As we move around the sexual landscape, we may come into contact with new and differ- ent definitions of sexual orientation, or we may have our previous definitions reinforced. Both circumstances will affect how we interpret our own sexual orientation and thus what we feel is a core part of ourselves. Both of these will affect the sexual identity labels we claim. Consequently, the man who is attracted to both men and women may reconsider his sexual identity after a conversation about sexual identity with a bisexual acquaintance.

We reiterate that there is not a direct causal relationship between ele- ments of the landscape and our sexual orientation or identity. It is not contact or exposure to parts of the landscape that causes someone to change their sexual orientation or identity—it is their personal interpretations of these ele- ments of the landscape. We may perceive landmarks to be significant that therefore cause a shift in orientation or identity for us, but those same land- marks may not even be noticed by others. Being exposed to different parts of the landscape may cause people to be more aware of new sexual orien- tations and identities, but only personal interpretations will dictate whether these possibilities are experienced as personally relevant. Thus, a gay person cannot directly cause a straight person to “turn” gay, for example.

As we develop our sexual identity, it may get both challenged and rei- fied by other landmarks on the sexual landscape. Identity theorists (Stryker & Burke, 2000) have explained that as we participate in networks that support a given identity, that identity will become more important to us, and we will be more likely to enact that identity in a wide range of situations. Thus, as we move around the sexual landscape, we are more likely to claim a sexual identity when it is supported by at least some of the landmarks around our location on the landscape. This is why some of us remain closeted for many years: although we interpret our sexual orientation as non-heterosexual, we do not feel adequate support from those around us to claim a gay identity. In this case, we will likely either remain closeted until the landscape changes enough that we feel adequate support for that identity, or we will purposely move locations on the sexual landscape to somewhere we do feel support for the new sexual identity.

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 517

For those of us who have a non-heterosexual sexual identity, it is often a central part of who we think we are. By coming out and building an iden- tity that resists heterosexual norms, both ourselves and others perceive the sexual identity to be an important part of the self. Not only is sexuality impor- tant in our culture, but heterosexuality is of deep importance and provides the standard by which to judge others. This is why sexual minorities have to come out in the first place: we must forge an identity in opposition to hetero- sexual norms (D’Augelli, 1994). By engaging in a process that is so disruptive to heteronormative standards and expectations, our non-heterosexual sexual identity may become of upmost importance. Furthermore, because mark- ers of difference (of many kinds) are the characteristics by which people are identified, these differences may become our master status (Goffman, 1963/1986).

For most of us who are heterosexual, on the other hand, heterosexu- ality is both an important and unimportant identity. It is important because homophobia and heterosexism lead to a stigma against homosexuality and bisexuality that many are not willing to tolerate, a stigma that, if we were per- ceived as not heterosexual, would mean that we are somehow “less than.” Because gender and sexual orientation are so often equated with each other in many locations on the sexual landscape, it can also mean we are somehow not appropriately masculine or feminine. Thus, many heterosexuals overtly display, proclaim, and defend our heterosexuality when we believe it is threatened or questioned. At the same time, because much of the landscape is heteronormative, there is an assumption that everyone is heterosexual unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This means that for many hetero- sexuals, our sexual orientation fades into the background and never becomes a salient identifying feature of who we are, much as White people often do not include “White” as part of their identity in the same way that people of color may feel their ethnicity to be a core part of their identity. Until, that is, there is reason to make it remarkable, such as when interacting with people of other races.

Sometimes identity does not seem to “match” with behavior. When this is the case, it may be because we are afraid of taking on a particular iden- tity (being closeted). This is affected by who is standing nearest to us on our sexual landscape and how we perceive their reaction, but also how we think it will change our own position on the landscape: to whom it will bring us closer, from whom it will distance us, how it changes our personal and occu- pational context, the political and discursive forces to which we are exposed. Identities also sometimes do not “match” because we interpret those behav- iors differently than do others and therefore see the identity label we have chosen as appropriate, even if others do not perceive it as such. For example, as Rust (1992) discovered while conducting a survey of lesbian and bisex- ual women, sexual attractions are most important for bisexual women when formulating a sexual identity, while current sexual and romantic behavior is

518 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

most important for lesbians. As Rust said, “the difference [between lesbian and bisexual women] does not lie as much in personal experience as it does in the conceptual frameworks by which experience is interpreted” (Rust, 1992, p. 17). Consequently, differences in identity may be due to different interpretations of feelings and behaviors, not necessarily an inherent differ- ence between two people. Thus, two people may have virtually the same level and type of attractions toward the same sex but could have differing sexual identities, depending on the emphasis they place on attractions and behaviors. There is no “correct” sexual identity for any given person, since it is a culturally and historically bound descriptor that will be applied based on our interpretation of its relevance to our self.

Shifts in the sexual landscape, and even changes to elements of a per- son’s sexual orientation stemming from these shifts, may or may not lead to a change in interpretation. Take heterosexual inmates in the prison system, for example. Prisoners undergo enormous shifts of the sexual landscape when they transition from normal society to a total institution. A hetero- sexual prisoner may even engage in sexual activity with inmates of the same sex, which may or may not cause a change to their sexual identity: it depends on how significant the change is to the multiple elements (behavior, attraction, fantasy, desire, feelings) of sexual orientation, as well as to their interpretations of those changes. For many inmates, the interpretations of their sexual identity does not change, so their sexual identity does not shift. Once again, interpretations determine whether shifts in sexual orientation or identity occur and to what degree, not simply changes to the landscape or even one’s response to these changes.

CHANGES IN SEXUAL IDENTITY

Rust (1996) described five main types of changes in the sexual landscape that affected the sexual identities of the bisexual participants she interviewed. They are

● A change in the person’s location on the sexual landscape. As a person forms relationships with new people or social groups, or their relationship to existing social or political institutions change, so, too, may their sexual identities.

● The landscape itself changes. This can include both historical changes in the landscape as well as the appearance of previously invisible landmarks, such as a friend or relative’s coming out. The language or labels available for identifying one’s sexual orientation changes.

● Living in multiple social contexts necessitates or encourages changes in identity across contexts. Some people, for example, may identify as queer

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 519

with LGBTQ friends, but as lesbian with their parents, and as bisexual with other bisexuals.

● There can be changes to the perception of accuracy of sexual identities. For example, one of the authors knows a man who for years identified as gay, but eventually (and only in some contexts) identified as a “bisexual man parading as a gay man” when he acknowledged that although all of his sexual experiences were with men, he did have significant attractions to some women.

● Intentional changes to the sexual landscape, through creating new cat- egories, new social contexts, and engaging in new movements. For example, some people create new identity labels, such as bi-dyke, queer, or heteroflexible, in order to intentionally challenge existing constructions or stereotypes and to better reflect their interpretations of their own sexual orientation.

According to Rust, all of these changes can affect how bisexual individu- als identify themselves. We argue that everyone, regardless of sexual identity, encounters these possible changes. Because we are always on a sexual land- scape, and both the landscape itself and our place on it changes, sexual orientation and identity are open to change. The fact that most monosexuals appear to have very stable sexual identities can be explained, Rust says, because while they may move around on the sexual landscape, they may continue to relate primarily to other monosexual people and landmarks, causing little change to their sexual identities. We add to this observation that even if they do relate to new landmarks that may potentially change their sexual orientations, they continue to interpret their feelings, behaviors, and thoughts consistently through the same lens over time, a lens that rein- forces their current sexual orientation and sexual identity. In other words, not only do they interact primarily with landmarks that reinforce their cur- rent identities, but their interpretations of any possible changes or challenges to that identity also remain stable, such that these changes go unnoticed, are dismissed, are viewed as unimportant, or are used to reinforce the existing identity. From our perspective, however, despite the appearance of a sta- ble sexual orientation, because the landscape changes, a change in sexual orientation (and therefore sexual identity) always remains a possibility.

Despite the fact that orientation is not necessarily stable, monosexuals may experience it as such. This is, in part, because we experience sexual identity as a core part of ourselves and therefore an integral part of our lives; changes to sexual identity may be perceived as threatening, as evidenced by how hostile some gays and lesbians are to notions of bisexuality and sexual fluidity, both of which suggest that sexual identities may be neither permanent nor the inevitable result of innate qualities (Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). Monosexuals may also perceive their identities as static because

520 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

their identity labels may restrict the likelihood that they will be sexually exploratory, and therefore may not actually give themselves the opportunity to experience sexual fluidity (Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994).

A change in sexual orientation may or may not lead to a change in sexual identity. We see three main reasons for this. A person who recog- nizes new attractions or engages in new behaviors may reinterpret their current sexual identity and consider these changes compatible with their existing sexual identity. For example, a heterosexual African American man may begin to occasionally have threesomes with his wife and another man. He may not interpret this behavior as significant and continue to consider his heterosexual identity as valid because his female partner is involved in the threesomes. The second reason that people may not shift their sexual identity is because they consider it irrelevant to do so. Consider a middle-aged White woman who identifies as lesbian and is in a long-term relationship with another woman. When she begins to feel attractions toward men, she deem- phasizes these attractions because she is still in love with her partner. In this case, she rejects a bisexual identity because she feels it will not have any significance for her relationship, her sex life, or her social surroundings. To change our sexual identity, we must intentionally relabel ourselves. Last, people who have experienced shifts to sexual orientation may hold negative associations with another sexual identity and remain in the closet to avoid having to publicly shift their identity. A middle-class White woman who pre- viously identified as lesbian but who starts dating a man, for example, may be hesitant to come out about her new relationship because she feels disloyal to the lesbian community. Note that only this last reason is related to fear of coming out. Changes to both sexual orientation and sexual identity may be experienced, but shifts to either one in isolation may occur as well. It is equally important to point out that people who experience shifts in sexual orientation or sexual identity are not going through a phase that will or that should end. Rather, they are experiencing a personal change that may shift further or may remain static, even as the possibility for change is maintained for all people.

Currently, many people use early childhood memories of difference as evidence that they were born gay. Research shows, however, that our current perspective may influence how we recall memories (cf. Gill, 2012; Halbwachs, 1992). One way this occurs is when we remember our past through our current framework to construct a single consistent narrative. For example, a White working-class gay man in his 30s may remember his past through his current lens. He experienced attractions toward women when he was much younger, although he never acted on them (save for a few isolated fantasies during masturbation), never talked about them to anyone, and was more attracted to men than to women. Over time, he reinterpreted these attractions to women, and as an older man he “remembered” those feelings as signs of friendship and admiration, even though he experienced those

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 521

feelings as attractions when younger. In this way, he is forming a single nar- rative that provides continuity and emphasizes a life experience that works toward a single outcome (in this case, his gay identity). This is why people who experience shifts in orientation may phrase this experience as “finding themselves” rather than changing orientations; they may be unconsciously constructing a single narrative that indicates they have always had that ori- entation, without being aware of it, in order to maintain a sense of stable sexual identity. This process can occur for anyone, including heterosexuals, but it has taken on an utmost political significance for gay and bisexual indi- viduals, who use this narrative as evidence that they were born the way they are.

These cognitive processes are unintentional and happen unconsciously, which is why people may have difficulty remembering times when their past attractions may have differed from their current attractions. Not only are we not always conscious of changes we are experiencing in regard to the process of orientation and identity development, but we are not always conscious of the ways in which our interpretations of these past experiences may morph.

WHY SEXUAL ORIENTATION CANNOT BE INTENTIONALLY CHANGED

We understand that some people may believe our model can be used to sup- port claims that sexual orientation can be intentionally changed. These claims support the use of reparative therapy, which aims to turn gay people straight. While we do believe that it is possible for reparative therapy to change some- one’s sexual identity (the label they use to categorize their sexual orientation) and that it can potentially change sexual behavior, all evidence shows that it does not change the other important elements that make up sexual ori- entation: attractions, feelings, fantasies, and desires (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; American Psychological Association, 2008; “APA discredits ‘reparative therapy,’” 2009). We believe its failure to do so is explained by the complexity of sexual orientation. Here we outline why sexual orienta- tion cannot be intentionally changed and, in so doing, further elucidate the process of sexual orientation development.

While our model suggests that everyone’s sexual orientation is open to change due to the changing nature of the sexual landscape and one’s place on it, we argue that changes in orientation arise organically and sponta- neously, not through conscious thought or action. There are multiple reasons for this. First, sexual orientation is multidimensional. It includes thoughts, behaviors, fantasies, attractions, feelings, and desires. For orientation itself to change in any appreciable way, there has to be change to more than one (though perhaps not all) of these elements. Just changing behaviors, for

522 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

example, does not mean that attractions, feelings, fantasies, and desires will also change or that they will do so in the same direction. So for orientation itself to change, there has to be a large enough change in enough of these dimensions for a person to feel that their very nature has changed.

Second, some of these things are easier to change consciously than others. Behaviors are likely the easiest element of orientation to change, followed perhaps by fantasies, but feelings and desires are more difficult. We see this in other behavior modification programs such as weight-loss programs and 12-step programs—we may change our behavior toward something we wish to avoid, but often the strong desire for that something remains. Whether we act on that desire or not, we feel it strongly and cannot merely talk or trick ourselves out of feeling it, no matter how much we may wish to. The same is true for feelings. Most of us have a very difficult time, for example, making ourselves not be angry when we feel angry or ceasing to be anxious when we feel anxiety. Many of us are very good at distract- ing ourselves, denying or covering up these emotions, but it is very difficult to actually change them in the moment. We may be able to manage our anger and divert it or express it less explosively, but we still generally feel it. The same is true of sexual feelings—it is very hard to change feelings of attraction, arousal, or love in the moments when they arise.

Third, the very act of trying to change feelings may actually increase the likelihood that they will persist. If we are trying to root out feelings of attraction, desire, or arousal, the feelings will take on more significance and therefore greater salience to us. We may become hyperaware of every interaction, every thought, every feeling that might be homosexual. We may interpret even small moments of attraction or desire as evidence that we haven’t really changed. This can lead to feelings of failure, unworthiness, shame, or frustration, all of which make each successive occurrence of such attraction a more disturbing and therefore a more salient event. Because interpretations build on previous interpretations, as we begin to fear that our homosexuality has not changed or is coming back, each subsequent same-sex attraction, thought, or fantasy may be even more quickly noticed or given meaning.

Fourth, it is difficult to change interpretations themselves. Remember that according to this model, it is not the actual landmarks or our place on the sexual landscape that “cause” sexual orientation, but rather our inter- pretations of them. Thus how we interpret our feelings, attractions, desires, fantasies, and behaviors plays a key role in the processes of sexual orienta- tion. Those interpretations spontaneously change over time, especially as we come into contact with new landmarks on the sexual landscape. Consciously trying to change those interpretations, however, proves difficult. Take, for example, the classic line drawing of the rabbit and the duck. When some people look at the picture, they see a rabbit first, and others see a duck. Some people who see the rabbit can try and try but just can’t make themselves see

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 523

the duck—they have a difficult time reinterpreting what they see. When and if they finally do see the duck, however, it becomes almost impossible to lose the ability to see the rabbit too, even if given great effort. Interpretations of the elements of sexual orientation are like this—once we have made an inter- pretation, it is very difficult to change it through effort or to force ourselves to completely let go of an interpretation we have previously held. In other words, once we have perceived ourselves as someone who is attracted to the same sex, it is difficult to change the interpretations of those feelings as not attraction but admiration or a desire to be friendly.

Fifth, it is impossible to control the sexual landscape, and as we move on the sexual landscape we will inevitably come into contact with new landmarks that may pose a threat to the sexual orientation we are trying to develop. We may come across people for whom we feel unwanted attraction or desire, we may run into people with whom we had previous sexual rela- tionships, or we may learn from another near us a different interpretation of the feelings or attractions we are having. Changes to the sexual land- scape are uncontrollable and unforeseeable. Similarly, one’s interpretations of these changes are also largely unforeseeable. As a result, it is difficult, if not impossible, to chart out a path where a certain sexual orientation will be created and maintained.

In short, sexual orientation cannot be intentionally changed because it and the processes of change are so complex. Even when a reparative therapy program can target one or two of the dimensions making up sex- ual orientation, it is impossible to target and control all of these elements. If a reparative therapist tries to change behavior and arousal, for exam- ple, it does not mean that they will be able to change desire or a feeling of love. If they encourage certain reinterpretations of feelings of attraction, these may be challenged when a same-sex attraction or fantasy does occur. If they try to control the sexual landscape by controlling the people and type of contact a person has with others, they cannot control the interpre- tations of that contact, and they cannot maintain control over the landscape indefinitely.

CONCLUSION

By presenting the framework of the sexual landscape, we hope to encourage others to consider sexual orientation and sexual identity through a new lens. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are extremely complex phenomena that are influenced by a multitude of factors, including personal experiences and cultural context. These factors shape biological potential and maintain the possibility that shifts to either sexual orientation or identity may occur, even if both are experienced as static.

524 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

This model has significant implications for sex research. A perspec- tive that recognizes the complexity of taken-for-granted phenomena will result in more comprehensive and explanatory research. It also provides an alternative to the biology versus choice debates, which oversimplify sexual orientation and remain unable to explain changes to orientation and identity throughout the life course. By adding a sociological perspective grounded in existing sexual and social theory, we aim to enrich the interdisciplinary dialog about the development of sexual orientation. Just as important, our model provides multiple entry points for future research investigating sexual orientation and its development. By treating sexual orientation and sexual identity as separate though related phenomena, it encourages research that looks at the interaction between them, rather than using one as a proxy for the other. Our model also encourages more targeted empirical examination of how shifting social contexts may affect both sexual orientation and sexual identity. It requires further study into how individuals make interpreta- tions and how these change over the life course or as people come into contact with new landmarks on the sexual landscape. Finally, it demands more research into intersectionality and how and feelings of difference may influence both orientation and identity.

What we have provided is an initial attempt to explain a very complex process. Certainly, some parts of the model need more thorough explana- tion and should be given greater attention than we have provided in this article. We have not covered all possibilities, factors, or processes of sexual orientation development or identity construction. We have started the pro- cess of trying to pinpoint as many aspects as possible through the nascent interpretive sexual landscape model. We strongly encourage others to build and expand on our model and to contribute to theorizing sexual orientation development from a perspective that recognizes the role of social, historical, and cultural contexts. While here we concern ourselves only with sexual orientation and sexual identity, we believe the interpretive sexual landscape model can also be used to explain other types of sexual preferences and alternate sexual identities (such as BDSM, fetishes, and polyamory). Such sexual preferences and inclinations are developed within the context of the sexual landscape and may shift throughout our lives, just as sexual orientation and sexual identity can shift.

By rejecting the assumptions that sexual orientation or sexual identity are natural, inborn, or permanent, this model will likely face heated criticism from social movements that rely on biological causes to convince others to extend tolerance and legal rights to the LGBQ community. Arguments that identify biological origins for sexual orientation development have become the savior of the lesbian and gay rights movement, as they imply people of all sexual orientations should be accepted because they cannot help being who they are. A stronger argument would advocate acceptance for its own sake, not relying on notions of helplessness to promote equality. Acceptance of

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 525

diversity should be promoted through a standard of genuine respect toward all others, not because biology has predetermined our identities. Similarly, this framework poses a threat to identity movements that rely on the con- struction of a permanent, unchanging identity for solidarity. We hope to add to the other voices that argue that diversity in human experience is natural, to be expected, and should be celebrated. Identity movements can instead rely on feelings of solidarity because of shared experiences, perspec- tives, and characteristics, while still recognizing that change is not threatening and that identities—and any accompanying shift—should be respected and embraced.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Nandi Crosby, Michele Bechard, and Kari Silva for their insights and comments on this work, and especially Martin S. Weinberg for providing the foundation from which our model grew. We would also like to thank the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers.

NOTES

1. See Diamond (2009) for a comprehensive account of sexual fluidity and how it is distinct from but related to sexual orientation and identity.

2. Symbolic interactionism preceded social constructionism, so it is actually social constructionism that is consistent with symbolic interactionism. We address social constructionism first because it has been much more widely used in studies of sexuality, and because doing so helps us explain our perspective by moving logically from the more macro to micro level.

3. BDSM stands for bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Position statement on therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orientation (reparative or conversion therapies). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157 , 1719–1721.

American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions: For a bet- ter understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Washington, DC: Office of Public and Member Communications. Retrieved from www.apa.org/ topics/sorientation.pdf.

APA discredits ‘reparative therapy.’ (2009). Contemporary Sexuality, 43 (10),7. Anderson, E. (2008). Being masculine is not about who you sleep with. . .:

Heterosexual athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sex Roles, 58, 104–115. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9337-7

Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089–1096.

526 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Dawood, K., Miller, M. B., Farrer, L. A., Trivedi, S., & Murphy, R. L. (1999). A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples. Behavior Genetics, 29, 79–86.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217–223.

Balthazart, J. (2011). The biology of homosexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bao, A. M., & Swaab, D. (2011). Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 214–216.

Becker, H. S. (1953). Becoming a marihuana user. American Journal of Sociology, 59, 235–242.

Blanchard, R., Cantor, J., Bogaert, A., Breedlove, S. M., & Ellis, L. (2006). Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 405–414.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bocklandt, S., Horvath, S., Vilain, E., & Hamer, D. H. (2006). Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men. Human Genetics, 118, 691–694.

Bogaert, A. F., & Hershberger, S. (1999). The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 213–221.

Brinch, C., & Galloway, T. A. (2012). Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America, 109, 425–430.

Callender, C., & Kochems, L. (1993). The North American berdache. In D. N. Suggs & A. W. Miracle (Eds.), Culture and human sexuality: A reader (pp. 367–397). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cantú Jr., L. (2009). The sexuality of migration. N. A. Naples & S. Vidal-Ortiz (Eds.). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.

Chrisler, J. C., & Caplan, P. (2002). The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde: How PMS became a cultural phenomenon and a psychiatric disorder. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13, 274–306.

Christianson, A. (2005). A re-emergence of reparative therapy. Contemporary Sexuality, 39(10), 8–17.

Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming-out process. American Behavioral Scientist, 25, 469–482.

Collins, P. H. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner. D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model

of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In T. J. Edison, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 527

Dawood, K., Pillard, R. C., Horvath, C., Revelle, W., & Bailey, J. M. (2000). Familial aspects of male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 155–163.

Demir, E., & Dickson, B. J. (2005). Fruitless splicing specifies male courtship behavior in Drosophila. Cell, 121, 785–794.

Deverell, K., & Prout, A. (1998). Sexuality, identity, and community: The experience of MESMAC. In P. Aggleton, & R. Parker, (Eds.), Culture, society and sexuality: A reader (pp. 337–354). London, UK & Philadelphia, PA: UCL Press.

Diamond, L. M. (2003a). New paradigms for research on heterosexual and sexual- minority development. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 490–498.

Diamond, L. M. (2003b). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364.

Diamond, L. M. (2005). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable versus fluid identity trajectories over an 8-year period. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 119–128.

Diamond, L. M. (2009). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). Explaining diversity in the develop- ment of same-sex sexuality among young women. Journal of Social Issues, 56 , 297–313.

Drescher, J. (1998). I’m your handyman: A history of reparative therapies. Journal of Homosexuality, 36 (1), 19–42.

Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 53–78.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2005). The bare bones of sex: Part 1—Sex and gender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1491–1527.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine.

Gay, J. (1993). ‘Mummies and babies’ and friends and lovers in Lesotho. In D. N. Suggs & A. W. Miracle (Eds.), Culture and human sexuality: A reader (pp. 341–355). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gill, S. K. (2012). Recalling a difficult past: Whites’ memories of Birmingham. Sociological Inquiry, 82, 29–48.

Goffman, E. (1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. (Original work published 1963).

Gordon, L. E., & Abbott, S. A. (2002). The social constructionist’s ‘essential’ guide to sex. In R. Heasely & B. Crane (Eds.), Sexual lives: A reader on the theories and realities of human sexualities (pp. 28–39). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. (L. A. Coser, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261(5119), 321–327. doi:10.1126/science.8332896

528 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

Hammack, P. L., Thompson, E. M., & Pilecki, A. (2009). Configurations of identity among sexual minority youth: Context, desire, and narrative. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38, 867–883.

Herdt, G. H. (Ed.). (1984). Ritualized homosexuality in Melanesia. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Herman-Kinney, N. J., & Reynolds, L. T. (2003). Handbook of symbolic interactionism. New York, NY: AltaMira.

Hines, M. (2011). Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sex- ually differentiated childhood behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 170–182. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.mantis.csuchico.edu/10.1016/j.yfrne. 2011.02.006

Katz, J. N. (1995). The invention of heterosexuality. New York, NY: Dutton. Kennedy, H. (1997). Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: First theorist of homosexuality. In

V. Rosario (Ed.), Science and homosexualities (pp. 26–45). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

Kitamoto, T. (2002). Conditional disruption of snynaptic transmission induces male- male courtship behavior in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 13232–13237.

Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S. (1995). Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism: The discursive production of lesbian identities. Developmental Psychology, 31, 95–104.

Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1–2), 35–49.

Krafft-Ebing, R. (1904). Psychopathia sexualis: With especial reference to contrary sexual instinct: A medico-legal study. New York, NY: Rebman. (First published in 1886).

LeVay, S. (2011a). Gay, straight, and the reason why: the science of sexual orientation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

LeVay, S. (2011b). From mice to men: Biological factors in the development of sexuality. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 3, 110–113.

Martin, K. A. (1993). Gender and sexuality: Medical opinion on homosexuality, 1900–1950. Gender and Society, 7 , 246–260.

Matsumoto, K. (1982). Secular acceleration of growth in height in Japanese and its social background. Annals of Human Biology, 9, 399–410.

McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity forma- tion: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. Counseling Psychologist 24, 508–534.

McElwain, A. D., Grimes, M. E., & McVicker, M. L. (2009). The implications of erotic plasticity and social constructionism in the formation of female sexual identity. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 21, 125–139.

McFadden, D., & Pasanen, E. G. (1998). Comparison of the auditory systems of het- erosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 2709–2713.

McIntosh, M. (1968). The homosexual role. Social Problems, 16 , 182–192.

Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape 529

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. C. W. Morris (Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Minton, H. L., & McDonald, G. J. (1984). Homosexual identity formation as a developmental process. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2–3), 91–104.

Mouritsen, A., Aksglaede, L., Sørensen, K., Mogensen, S. S., Leffers, H., Main, K. M., . . . Juul, A. (2010). Hypothesis: Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals may interfere with timing of puberty. International Journal of Andrology, 33, 346–359.

Mustanski, B. S., Dupree, M. G., Nievergelt, C. M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N. J., & Hamer, D. H. (2005). A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics, 116 , 272–278.

Nanda, S. (1985). The hijras of India: Cultural and individual dimensions of an institutionalized third gender role. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(3–4), 35–54.

Nanda, S. (1999). Gender diversity: Crosscultural variations. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Padgug, R. (1992). Sexual matters: On conceptualizing sexuality in history. In E. Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 43–67). New York, NY: Routledge.

Plummer, K. (1996). Symbolic interactionism and the forms of homosexuality. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/sociology (pp. 64–82). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Rahman, Q., Kumari, V., & Wilson, G. D. (2003). Sexual orientation-related dif- ferences in prepulse inhibition of the human startle response. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117 , 1096–1102.

Roselli, C. E., Larkin, K., Schrunk, J. M., & Stormshak, F. (2004). Sexual partner prefer- ence, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams. Physiology & Behavior, 83, 233–245.

Rust, P. C. (1992). The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and behavior among lesbian and bisexual women. Social Problems, 39, 366–386.

Rust, P. C. (1996). Sexual identity and bisexual identities: The struggle for self- description in a changing sexual landscape. In B. Beemyn & M. Eliason (Eds.), Queer studies: A lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered anthology (pp. 64–86). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Schmidt, R. E. (2005, May 10). Gay men respond differently to pheromones. LiveScience. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/health/ap_050510_ pheromones.html

Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Seidman, S. (2003). The social construction of sexuality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Shively, M. G., & De Cecco, J. P. (1977). Components of sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 3(1), 41–48.

Socarides, C. (1992). Sexual politics and scientific logic: The issue of homosexuality. Journal of Psychohistory, 19, 307–329.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.

Takahashi, E. (1984). Secular trend in milk consumption and growth in Japan. Human Biology, 56 , 427–437.

530 L. E. Gordon and T. J. Silva

Terry, J. (1999). An American obsession: Science, medicine, and homosexuality in modern society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Thomas, D. S., & Thomas, W. I. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York, NY: Knopf.

Tiefer, L. (1995). Sex is not a natural act and other essays. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. M. (2001). Desegregating sexuality research: Cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 33–74.

Troiden, R. R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Society for Adolescent Medicine, 9, 105–113.

Ulrichs, K. H. (1994). The riddle of “man-manly” love: The pioneering work on male homosexuality (vols. 1–2). (M. A. Lombardi-Nash, Trans.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Walvoord, E. C. (2010). The timing of puberty: Is it changing? Does it matter? Journal of Adolescent Health, 47 , 433–439.

Ward, J. (2008). Dude-sex: White masculinities and ‘authentic’ heterosexual- ity among dudes who have sex with dudes. Sexualities, 11, 414–434. doi:10.1177/1363460708091742

Weeks, J. (2003). Sexuality: Key ideas. New York, NY: Routledge. Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction:

Understanding bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wikan, U. (1977). Man becomes woman: Transsexualism in Oman as a key to gender

roles. Man, 12, 304–319. Williams, T. J., Pepitone, M. E., Christensen, S. E., Cooke, B. M., Huberman, A. D.,

Breedlove, N. J., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2000). Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature, 404(6777), 455–456.

Wolitski, R., Jones, K., Wasserman, J., & Smith, J. (2006). Self-identification as “down low” among men who have sex with men (MSM) from 12 US cities. AIDS & Behavior, 10, 519–529. doi:10.1007/s10461-006-9095-5