“Everyone under 25 thinks they are queer.”

~   The Bisexual (Hulu)

Mating Straight Talk (MST) attempts to scientifically demonstrate the evolved behavioral sex differences between men and women and explain human mate selection; it does so because heterosexual (behaviorally) men and women produce human children and the race of homo sapiens on earth.

MST affirms “straight” male and female sexuality as drivers of procreation and protection of offspring but recognizes outliers of sexual orientation that must be explained or incorporated into the understanding of the forces that propel sexual reproduction.  We cannot fully understand “straight” sexuality without considering the proportion, “causes,” and role that homosexuality (and all apparent variations of sexual orientation along a continuum) may play in the evolution of human species — or at least the role of sexual orientation variations in contemporary dating and mating.

Starting with a Basic Foundation of Sexual Orientation

In the coming months, I will write about the complex and sometimes confusing world of sexual orientation, gender identity, identity presentation, and the biology of sex. I will start by addressing a “basic foundation”: sexual orientation among cisgender individuals – (people who identify with the biological sex that they were assigned at birth).

Cisgender Is Subjective

While cisgender individuals are the statistical norm (mode), even “cisgender” (as a category of gender identity) has a psychological component. Identity is always subjective and personal.  For example, a person can have an xx chromosomal/genetic makeup, female external genitalia, female internal reproductive organs, be considered a girl by the hospital, midwife, and parents, yet still “choose” to identify as a man.  However, being cisgender theoretically says nothing about sexual orientation — nothing about who that person desires and wants to have sex with (or why).   Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender presentation often get conflated and confused in the immense vocabulary of “identity” parlance.  Later, I will introduce the variations of gendered identity beyond cisgender and biological sex (i.e., “male” and “female.”)

But to simplify, let’s begin with sexual orientation among cisgender identified individuals and consider the following “foundational” spectrum:

Orientation Spectrum

• Homosexuality (gay/lesbian): (Near) exclusive sexual attraction to, or sexual activity with, the same sex.

• Bisexuality: Some proportion of attraction to both the opposite sex and the same sex (roughly within a 30-70% split one way or another as a conceptual null hypothesis) exhibited by internal experience, desire, and behavior depending upon the context and a host of factors.

• “Mostly straight” women:  I will also call them “hetero-flexible.”  These are self-identified heterosexual women who express an “occasional” or infrequent feeling of desire for another women or behavior of sexual attraction to another woman.  Along with outright bisexuality, this orientation designation draws from a broad spectrum of research on women’s sexual fluidity that is dramatically on the increase among Gen Y.1 (25-29 years old) and Gen Z (up to 24 years of age).

• “Mostly straight” men: Based on the book and research by Rich Savin-Williams at Cornell, these are supposedly self-identified heterosexual men who occasionally have a desire for and sexual behavior with other men. For me, this is the most interesting (and perhaps controversial) category to investigate on the sexual orientation spectrum.  What does evolutionary psychology have to say about these men?

• Heterosexual men and women: Men and women who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.  They are the most common orientation and the subject of most research on sexual selection in evolutionary psychology.

• Where do asexuals, “pansexuals,” and “demi-sexuals” fit along the above spectrum? Are they an actual orientation?  All of this will be explored in future posts.

Sources of Information

These are broad and complex topics studied and researched primarily within the field of “gender studies.”  I will draw upon just a fraction of the available literature, including:

Books:

• Lisa Diamond’s classic Sexual Fluidity, Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (2008).
• Rich Savin-Williams’ ground-breaking book, Mostly Straight, Sexual Fluidity Among Men (2017).
• Jennifer Baumgardner’s Look Both Ways — Bisexual Politics (2007).

Popular – Lay Critiques:

• “The Science of Gender (Time Magazine, Special Edition, 2020).
• “The Gender Revolution” (National Geographic, Special Edition, Jan. 2017).
• Writings and resources from the website Them and writings in the categories of relationship and sexuality appearing in Medium.

Last But Not Least — from Evolutionary Psychology:

• Numerous critiques, studies, and articles.

Commentary in Future Posts – Confusion and Inquiry

Here are some of the issues that I will be addressing in the coming months:

What Are the Effects of Increasing Female Sexual Fluidity on Heterosexual Relationships?

• The “new” bisexuality and hetero-flexibility of women may significantly influence the heterosexual mating marketplace – a marketplace that already favors the erotic power of women to choose and the struggles of men to be chosen.  We would be well served to understand the cultural forces that seem to have increased female sexual fluidity.

• Is there a drift away from men as sexual partners and less understanding and respect for male heterosexuality? This “drift away” from men appears to be an exercise in preference, not orientation.

• What are the problems of heterosexual men in attempting to partner with these women? The bisexual behavior of women may be uncovering an inherent female bisexual orientation, or it could also be an expression of a disenchantment with men and masculinity in general.

What Are the Sociological Causes of Increased Declarations of “Queer” Identity?

• Is the increased number of “queer-identified” (used as a convenient short-cut, catch-all term) young Americans due to new permission to “come out,” or is there some deeper nature-nurture co-evolution expressing itself (albeit with radically accelerated speed)?

• How much of “queer identity” is a cultural meme related to the need to be unique and “cool” yet also (paradoxically) driven by a need to belong and relieve anxiety?

• How much of this cultural phenomenon (or even a fast-moving nurture-nurture co-evolutionary effect) is a function of the digital and virtual world where any identity can be tested and tried with relative anonymity? (See episodes of Black Mirror.)

• How much of “queer identity” reflects a lens of activism projected through the entertainment media: the view of the outlier and artist who is disproportionately “queer,” providing commentary on all these issues through film, TV, and theatre?  Are we being “hammered” by political correctness and snowflake psychology to put a flashing (and exaggerated) neon light on the need for change?  Does this powerful voice of change necessarily represent a proportional expression of the actual numbers of people within the sexual orientation and gender identity communities across the globe?

Conflating of Terms Across Domains of Function

There is a mixture and conflating of orientation, gender identity, biological sex, and gender presentation in the umbrella category of LGBTQ2SIA+.

The LGBTQ2SIA+ acronym is a political designation that identifies anyone who does not identify with the biological sex “assigned to them” at birth or anyone who is not heterosexual.  Therefore, this categorical umbrella has myriad designations of biology and subjective psychological states which overlap and involve redundancy with inadequate definitions and distinctions between them.  (This is one of the reasons why there is much internal strife between political advocacy groups representing these designations.)

Conflating of Biological Sex and Gender Identity in Arguments

In the political advocacy writings about (and from) these groups, there is often a conflating of biological sex and gender identity in their arguments.  On the one hand, the difference between biological sex and gender identity is described.  Then several paragraphs later, gender identity will be used to imply biological sex and vice versa without noting that a blurring of definitions has occurred.

What About Trans-sexuality and Intersex?

The issues, needs, and stories of transsexuals are compelling and deserve our full attention and support. Unpacking the permutations of gender identities and expressions of sexual orientation among transsexuals (and their partners) is one of the most unexplored areas of sexual, psychological research.  One question jumps out in this sphere:  what is the biological basis (genetic, hormonal, neural) for gender dysphoria?

There are differences of opinion about the nature and amount of people who do not present as one biological sex or the other, i.e., as men or women.  These people are called intersex — an umbrella term for several biological and physiological conditions.  Intersex folks are rare, but their political advocacy is not.

Do We Still Have Biological Men and Women?

What we are perhaps left with, inside the advocacy of these various groups, is the idea that a biological “man” and “woman” may no longer make sense.  It is asserted (in some circles) that not only is gender “non-binary” (with literally millions of possibilities of proclaimed identification) but that biological sex is also non-binary (which is NOT to say it is a continuum).  And yet, we need sperm and ovum (unfertilized female gamete) to make the human race on planet earth.

Political Battles and Framing

One might notice that much of the discussion about gender identity, orientation, etc., is framed as a political battle of us vs. them, oppressed vs. oppressor, victim vs. perpetrator. This framing is not incorrect per se; it just obfuscates the knowledge within the biological and psychological sciences.   It heightens the influence of the social and emotional context in the field of human sexuality (especially female sexuality) and reproduction.  The history and certitude of human reproduction and sexual selection are blurred under the weight of group politics and individual expressions for belonging, recognition, and justice.

Why Swim in These Waters?

An attempt to systematically unpack the confusing and ever-evolving narratives of sexual orientation and gender identity is probably a fool’s errand.  Why address issues of sexual orientation in the posts of MST (leaving aside, for now, the multitudinous universe of gender identity variations)?  From the About page on this site, one of the purposes of MST is “to explore and bring clarity to issues of gender politics and the tensions between men and women related to roles, power, and sexual strategies with a focus on honesty, mutual understanding, and complementarity.” The upcoming posts are “on purpose.”

Evolutionary Psychology Joins the Conversation

Conversations about orientation and identity are ubiquitous in current politics, popular psychology, social media, and entertainment.   They are staring us in the face.  Evolutionary psychology and mate selection science must be in the mix with critique and information and thus utilize this cultural moment to expand our knowledge of what it means to be a sexual human being.

Outliers Reveal More About Evolved Sex Differences?

Statistical outliers of orientation may help elucidate the nature of male and female sexuality and the evolved behavior differences between “the sexes.”  The broader conversation about the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identity may increase our understanding of the co-evolutionary synergy of biology and culture.  Grasping the contours of sexuality in 2021 seems to require exploring the continuum of “queer” identities; it calls for an inquiry about the biology, psychology, and cultural politics of desire and sexual relating.   Certainly, it provokes curiosity about what it means to be human.

Beyond Nature and Nurture

Relatedly, evolutionary psychology (EP) must continue to articulate insights beyond the “nature vs. nurture” debate and explain what is meant by “dual inheritance” or “structured prior-to-experience.”  Also, EP must recognize the possibilities of human potential that come from “naming” (if not discovering) new forms of identity.

The Tenets of Sexual Selection Do Not Change

Alas, perhaps it is not necessary to solve the riddle of homosexuality, bisexuality, and “mostly straight” sexuality (and other variations of orientation) as it relates to evolution and sexual reproduction.  (More of the fool’s errand?  The jury is still out.) The basic tenets of mate choice (sexual selection) for reproduction do not change.  Procreation between biological men and women (sperm and ovum) seems to operate unimpeded on its own terms.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.