You are on page 1of 37

Correlates of Same-Sex Sexuality in Heterosexually-

Identified Young Adults




Journal: The Journal of Sex Research
Manuscript ID: 08-045.R3
Manuscript Type: Original Article
Keywords:
Attraction/Courtship Behavior, Fantasies, Psychology and sexuality,
Sexual minorities




PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
Abstract
Little is currently known about heterosexually-identified individuals who
nonetheless acknowledge same-sex interests. To address this shortcoming, we examined
the prevalence of same-sex attractions, fantasies, and experiences among heterosexually-
identified college students, as well as differences between those who are exclusively
heterosexual in their interests and those who are nonexclusive because they report some
same-sex attractions or fantasies. Students (N = 243) at a large Northeastern university
completed an on-line survey providing information about their sexual orientation identity;
same- and other-sex attractions, fantasies, and behaviors; and demographic, sexual
history, and sexual attitudes variables. Compared to exclusive heterosexual women,
nonexclusive women were more liberal in their political and sexual attitudes and had
greater sexual experience. Nonexclusive men were virtually indistinguishable from
exclusive heterosexual peers on assessed variables. Results are discussed in terms of
implications for the nature and meaning of nonheterosexuality in contemporary Western
society.
Page 1 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Based on the conceptualizations of early sexologists, sexual orientation has been
traditionally conceived as a multitude of components expressed through a range of overt
sexual behaviors and internal states such as feelings, cognitions, and desires (Kinsey,
Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Shively & De Cecco, 1977). To address this complexity, a
number of researchers concluded that sexual orientation is not categorical but
dimensional, a multivariable dynamic process (Klein, 1990, p. 277). The
multivariable aspect has been supported by both theorists and methodologists (Chung
& Katayama, 1996; Coleman, 1987; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985; Sell, 1996, 1997;
Weinrich, Snyder, Pilllard, & Grant, 1993) and the dynamic aspect, especially over
time, has been documented during adolescence and young adulthood for both sexes
(Diamond, 2008; Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006; Savin-Williams, 2005).
In these studies, the most consistently proposed indicators of sexual orientation have been
identity, attractions, fantasies, and behaviors.
Despite these understandings, contemporary sexual orientation research often
ignores this construct complexity by defining sexuality with reference to only one
component and by disregarding the dimensional and dynamic aspects. For example, the
sexual orientation of research participants is sometimes categorized based on their self-
reported sexual identity, with the typical choices being heterosexual, bisexual, or
homosexual (e.g., McBee-Strayer & Rogers, 2002; Tiggemann, Martins, & Kirkbride,
2007). The unstated assumption is that sexual identity is the uniting and stable aspect of
one's self-concept that organizes and directs in meaningful ways ones inner desires and
expressed behaviors, and that reflects something essential about oneself (Savin-Williams,
2001, 2006).
Page 2 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
However, the extent to which sexual identity is an accurate reflection of true
erotic fantasies and attractions and is manifested in actual sexual behaviors remains
unclear. Although research on nonheterosexually-identified populations has shown that
the correlation among different dimensions of sexual orientation is generally high
(Diamond, 1993), many discrepancies exist, particularly among women (Diamond, 2008)
and bisexuals (Weinberg, Williams, & Prior, 1994). In addition, Rosario and colleagues
(1996) have shown that over time nonheterosexual youth change various components of
their sexuality, especially during adolescence and young adulthood.
In contrast to research conducted on gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, the
discrepancies between identity and other sexual orientation components among
heterosexual individuals have rarely been investigated. In fact, little is known about those
who border but do not inhabit the exclusively other-sex oriented pole. In most cases,
individuals who express a small degree of same-sex sexuality in their identities,
behaviors, or attractions are combined with heterosexuals (Bos, Sandfort, de Bruyn, &
Hakvoort, 2008; Cardoso, in press; Iemmola & Ciani, in press; Rahman & Hull, 2005;
Tiggemann et al., 2007). To increase the sample size of nonheterosexuals, they might
also be included with research subjects who have on any singular component an
indication of same-sex sexuality (Boyce, Doherty-Poirier, MacKinnon, Fortin, Saab,
King, & Gallupe., 2006; Plderl & Fartacek, 2008). This data reduction is usually
justified for empirical (small sample sizes of same-sex oriented subjects) rather than
theoretical reasons. Occasionally, investigators drop these individuals altogether from
consideration, or at least in some analyses (DAugelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001;
Page 3 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Ellis, Robb, & Burke, 2005), or it is not clear what happened to these individuals
(Fitzpatrick, Euton, Jones, & Schmidt, 2005).
Although in the past these strategies might have been necessary or justified
because few individuals claimed a sexual orientation other than the tripartite
heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual, or they were invisible because only one sexual
orientation component was assessed, this is no longer the case for both males and females
(Austin, Ziyadeh, Fisher, Kahn, Colditz, & Frazier, 2004; Busseri, Willoughby,
Chalmers, & Bogaert, 2006, 2008; DAugelli, Grossman, Salter, Vasey, Starks, &
Sinclair, 2005; Ellis et al., 2005; Hoburg et al., 2004; Thompson & Morgan, 2008; Savin-
Williams & Ream, 2007). What have emerged from these studies are, presumably,
heterosexually-identified individuals who express slight same-sex interests when allowed
to respond to dimensional aspects of sexuality. For example, Ellis and colleagues (2005)
surveyed over 8000 U.S. and Canadian college students and found that although only 2-
3% of men and women identified as homosexual, bisexual, or uncertain, 6-8% reported
1-10% same-sex attraction. These slightly same-sex oriented individuals were more
numerous than those who expressed a strong (50% or higher) same-sex orientation
presumably the 2% of youth who identified as bisexual, gay, or lesbian. Bogaert (2003)
reported almost identical findings in a representative sample of British households: 5-6%
reported being most often attracted to the other sex, but at least once to the same sex,
which was more than those with exclusive same-sex attractions and equal attractions to
both sexes combined. In a large sample of Australian twins in which attractions and
fantasies were combined in a single score of sexual feelings, Bailey, Dunne, and Martin
(2000) found a bi-modal distribution in nonheterosexual feelings for men: Kinsey 1,
Page 4 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
heterosexual with slight homosexual feelings, was reported as often (2.5%) as Kinsey
6, completely homosexual. Moreover, most nonheterosexual women (5%) belonged to
the Kinsey 1 category, more than Kinsey 2s through 6s combined. When given a
restricted choice of sexual identities, such individuals with slight same-sex attractions
and/or fantasies are most likely to choose a heterosexual label. However, Thompson and
Morgan (2008) proposed that these individuals constitute a new nonheterosexual group,
variously named the mostly straight or mostly heterosexual.
Little about this group, however, has been investigated and thus the consequences
of including these individuals in investigations, beyond eliciting varying degrees of same-
sex sexuality prevalence rates, remain obscure. If nonexclusive heterosexuals are
significantly different from their exclusive peers on relevant outcome variables, treating
them as a single homogeneous group would render analyses problematic. The few
investigators who compare mostly heterosexual subjects with other sexual orientation
groups in their protocol have yielded intriguing but unsystematic results. For example,
those with Kinsey scores of 1 (heterosexual with slight homosexual feelings) on a
combined measure of sexual attractions and fantasies were significantly more gender
nonconforming as children and adults and more likely to have had same-sex partners than
the exclusively heterosexual (Bailey et al., 2000). Comparing mental health scores across
sexual orientation statuses reveals inconsistencies: mostly heterosexual are the healthiest
(Austin et al., 2004), the least healthiest (Austin et al., 2004; Busseri et al., 2008), or
similar to one or more other sexual orientation groups in their health status (Austin et al.,
2004; Busseri et al., 2006, 2008). Compared to heterosexuals, young women who
identified as mostly heterosexual were more likely to explore their sexual identity,
Page 5 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
manifested through their increased interest in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships
and their openness in the future to these endeavors (Thompson & Morgan, 2008).
Thompson and Morgan argued that these were not women on their way to becoming
something else; they occupied a behaviorally unique space and did not aspire to being
heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian.
In this investigation, our goal was to expand knowledge about mostly
heterosexual young adults through a web-based survey of a convenience sample of
heterosexually-identified young adults. We compared individuals whose psychological
components of their sexual orientation were consistent with their heterosexual identity
label with those who were inconsistent because they reported some degree of same-sex
interests. We chose to focus on psychological rather than behavioral aspects due to their
greater stability and independence from situational constrains. Similar to Bailey and
colleagues (2000), we used a combination of sexual attractions and sexual fantasies as a
measure of sexual orientation and, similar to the approach used by Ellis and colleagues
(2005), participants were asked to express their attractions and fantasies to same-sex and
opposite-sex partners on a 100-point scale. In addition, following Sells (1996, 1997)
argument that unidimensional sexual orientation measures force individuals to make
trade-offs between their feelings toward the same and the other sex, we assessed both
components on two separate continua. Thus, instead of asking participants to sum the
percentages of their attractions/fantasies toward women and men to 100%, we allowed
these to vary independently.
The focus of this study was on normative behavioral and attitudinal differences
between the exclusive and nonexclusive heterosexual-identified young adults.
Page 6 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Unfortunately, little empirical data were available to guide us in predicting group
differences. The mostly heterosexual young women in Thompson and Morgans (2008)
investigation were particularly high on identity exploration and such individuals have
been shown to possess more liberal sexual attitudes and greater sexual self-awareness
(Worthington, Navarro, Savoy, & Hampton, 2008), which in turn has been related to
extensive and varied sexual experiences (Snell, Fisher, & Miller, 1991). In addition,
Kinsey 1 scorers in Bailey and colleagues' (2000) study had more same-sex partners than
Kinsey 0 scorers. Based on these findings, we hypothesized greater liberality among the
mostly heterosexual participants compared to their exclusive peers, in both their sexual
behaviors and sexual attitudes. Specifically, we expected this difference to be evident in
an earlier onset of sexual activity, more lifetime sexual partners, a greater likelihood of
having engaged in casual sex and more casual sex partners (aspects of sexual behaviors),
as well as in lower religiosity, more liberal political ideology, and greater acceptance of
non-conventional expression of sexuality, such as casual sex and nonmonogamy (aspects
of sexual attitudes) among nonexclusive individuals. We also explored whether the
degree of nonexclusivity among mostly heterosexual individuals would be differentially
related to the variables investigated, or alternatively, whether all mostly heterosexual
individuals are the same.
Due to the overwhelming evidence for a differentially structured sexuality in the
two sexes (Baumeister, 2000; Chivers, Rieger, Latty, & Bailey, 2004), all analyses were
conducted separately for women and men. Given the lack of previous research, no
specific hypotheses were made regarding the nature of potential sex differences in the
relationship between sexual orientation groups and sexual behaviors and attitudes.
Page 7 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Method
Participants
Through a web-based survey on casual sex, 260 students at a large elite
Northeastern university provided information about various aspects of their sexual
orientation. Prior to analysis, entries were individually inspected to identify potential
multiple responses and other abnormalities. No multiple responses were identified but
due to a substantial amount of missing data, 17 participants were excluded from the final
sample, resulting in 243 usable entries. Fourteen participants identified as gay or lesbian,
11 as bisexual, 11 as bi-curious, 2 as questioning, and 2 failed to provide this
information. The data reported here included 203 (84%) students who identified as
heterosexual (112 undergraduates and 92 graduates).
One half (47%) of respondents were female and the mean age of the sample was
23 years (SD = 3.7, range = 18 to 33 years, median = 22). The sample was ethnically
diverse: 38% of respondents identified as non-Caucasian (including 9% East Asian, 8%
Latina/o, 8% multiracial, 7% Indian, and 5% African American), and 28% were
international students (Table 1).
Procedure
The survey was administered on-line using the Websurveyor tool, taking
approximately 30 minutes to complete. The research was announced with fliers
containing basic information about the survey and direct links to the web-site in several
undergraduate and graduate courses across several departments (including engineering,
communications, economics, international and labor relations, hotel administration, law,
psychology, human development, English, and anthropology). The fliers were distributed
Page 8 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
in all residential dormitories for graduate and undergraduate students as well as several
recreational-community centers on campus beginning May 2007. Participants completed
the questionnaire anonymously and without compensation. No information is available
regarding the number of participants recruited using the various strategies or students
majors.
Measures
Demographics. Respondents provided information about their age, race/ethnicity,
and home country.
Sexual orientation identity label. To assess self-identified sexual orientation,
participants were asked, How would you label your sexual identity? Provided response
options were the ones most frequently used in psychological research: heterosexual,
gay/lesbian, and bisexual, as well as two recently used labels, bi-curious and
undetermined/questioning. These were included in order to provide a more sensitive
measure that would more appropriately classify individuals who were somewhere in-
between and who, in the absence of these labels, would most likely have chosen
heterosexual despite its inadequacy to accurately describe their sexuality. Only the
responses of those selecting the heterosexual option were analyzed in this paper.
Sexual attraction. Sexual attraction was assessed using Ellis and colleagues
(2005) approach, modified to allow for bi-dimensional assessment. Participants were
asked two questions, If you could express your sexual or erotic attractions in
percentages from 0% to 100%, how attracted would you say you are to women [men]?
They were further instructed that responses do not have to sum to 100%. For example,
some people can be very attracted to both sexes (respond with 100% to both questions);
Page 9 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
other might not be attracted to either sex (respond with 0% to both questions). Question
order was not counterbalanced for female and male participants, with the attraction to
women assessed before the attraction to men.
Sexual fantasy. Similar to sexual attraction, participants same- and other-sex
sexual fantasies were assessed with separate questions for each sex, What percentage of
your sexual fantasies during masturbation or sex involves women [men]? They were
instructed that the percents to the two questions do not have to sum to 100%. The order of
the two questions was the same across participants.
Sexual behavior. A sex partner was defined as a person with whom genital sexual
contact has been made, including, but not limited to, mutual masturbation, oral sex,
penile-vaginal intercourse, and anal intercourse. Participants were asked to report, in two
separate questions, the total number of female and male sex partners in their lifetime.
Onset of sexual activity. Participants provided the age at which they first
experienced genital contact with a female and a male. The earlier of the two ages was
considered the individuals onset of sexual activity. Respondents (N = 4) who indicated
that their first genital sexual experience occurred before age 10 were excluded from this
analysis to focus on sexual experiences that occurred peri- and post-pubertal.
Total number of sex partners. The total number of sex partners was calculated by
summing the number of female and male sex partners over the participants lifetime.
Past and future engagement in casual sex. Participants provided the total number
of female and male casual sex partners, defined as sex partners who respondents were
not dating at the time nor were emotionally attached to. Responses were used as a
continuous variable and as a means to categorize respondents in two groups: those with
Page 10 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
and without past casual sex experience. Respondents interest in future involvement in
casual sex was assessed by asking whether they would like to engage in casual sex in the
future, thus creating a dichotomous variable.
Religiosity. Religiosity was assessed on 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at
all religious to very religious. Higher scores indicate greater religiosity.
Political ideology. Political ideology was assessed on 5-point Likert scale ranging
from very liberal to very conservative. Higher scores indicate more conservative
ideology.
Attitudes toward nonmonogamy. Attitudes toward nonmonogamy were assessed
with five items developed for this survey (Appendix). Respondents rated their agreement
on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (Completely agree) to 7 (Completely disagree).
Responses were recoded so that higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward
nonmonogamy. Cronbach alpha was .71
Attitudes toward casual sex. Attitudes toward casual sex assessed respondents
attitudes toward casual sex as a social phenomenon, rather than their personal interest in
engaging in it. On a 7-point Likert scale they rated their agreement to five items
developed for this survey (Appendix). Higher scores indicated more positive attitudes
toward casual sex. Cronbach alpha was .89.
Results
The sample was politically liberal and non-religious. The vast majority of
respondents were sexually experienced (over 90%), with an average of 7 lifetime sex
partners. Most had also experienced casual sex and held favorable attitudes toward casual
sex, although not toward nonmonogamy (Table 1).
[Insert Table 1 here]
Page 11 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
First, we explored the consistency of three components of sexual orientation
(attractions, fantasies, and behaviors) among those who self-identified as heterosexual.
Next, we compared the sexual histories and beliefs of respondents who were consistently
heterosexual with those who reported a degree of same-sex interests.
Consistency in Sexual Orientation Components
Heterosexually-identified individuals reported strong heterosexual components.
Other-sex attraction averaged 94% (SD = 8) for women and 97% (SD = 6.4) for men;
other-sex fantasy during masturbation, 98% (SD = 11.6) for women and 87% (SD = 23.4)
for men. Three respondents of each sex expressed less than 80% other-sex attraction
(range = 60% to 75%); two men and eight women expressed less than 50% other-sex
fantasy. Two participants (a woman and a man) reported little attraction toward the other
sex (less than 30%), no other-sex fantasy, and 100% same-sex attraction and fantasy.
They were excluded from further analyses.
Same-sex attraction frequently co-existed with other-sex sexual orientation
components. The mean for same-sex attraction was 15% (SD = 15.8, range = 0% to 60%)
among women and 6% (SD = 14.9, range = 0% to 80%) among men. For both sexes,
sexual fantasy was more exclusively heterosexual than attraction (women: M = 14%, SD
= 25.2, range = 0% to 100%; men: M = 2%, SD = 8.6, range = 0% to 65%). Although
means were low, the percent of participants who reported any same-sex attraction and
fantasy was considerable. Most women and many men reported at least some same-sex
attraction (79%, 43%) and fantasy (52%, 22%); these proportions usually ranged from
1% to 10% and women reported a higher percent of same-sex attraction and fantasy than
did men (Figure 1).
Page 12 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
[Insert Figure 1 here]
A small number of respondents (8%) had no genital sexual experience with
partners of either sex. Among the sexually experienced, the average number of other-sex
partners was nearly identical for both sexes: 7.5 partners (median = 5, range = 1 to 48)
among women, and 7.7 partners (median = 5, range = 1 to 51) among men. Of those
sexually experienced, a same-sex partner was reported by 14% women and 4% men. The
number of same-sex partners was either one or two. All women and all but one man who
reported at least one same-sex partner also reported at least one other-sex partner.
Table 2 illustrates the percent of individuals who exhibited inconsistencies
between their heterosexual self-identification and one or more of the other sexual
orientation components. Respondents were grouped based on the number of components
(attraction, fantasy, behavior) on which they indicated at least some same-sex interest
(more than 0% attraction or fantasy, or any same-sex partner). The majority of women
(84%) and one half of men (51%) expressed inconsistency in their sexual orientation. The
majority of those who had a same-sex partner also reported same-sex fantasy (women:
82%, men: 75%) and same-sex attraction (women: 100%, men: 50%). Similarly, most of
those with same-sex fantasy reported same-sex attraction (women: 94%, men: 67%).
[Insert Table 2 here]
Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes of Heterosexuals with Exclusive and Nonexclusive Same-
Sex Interests
We next explored whether the presence and the degree of same-sex sexuality
among heterosexually-identified individuals was related to their sexual behaviors and
attitudes. Although same-sex attraction was stronger and more prevalent than same-sex
Page 13 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
fantasy, the two were moderately correlated, Spearmans rho = 0.54, p < .0001 (a
nonparametric test when normality violations characterize both variables, Shapiro-Wilk
W test p < .001). Thus, reports of same-sex attraction and fantasy were combined into
one composite measure of same-sex interest (women: M = 14.4, SD = 16.9, range = 0 to
80; men: M = 4.3, SD = 9.8, range = 0 to 63).
To investigate whether any level of nonexclusivity was different from complete
exclusive heterosexuality, two groups were created based on the same-sex interest scores.
The exclusive heterosexual group was composed of those with a mean score of 0 (0% on
both fantasy and attraction); all others were placed in the nonexclusive heterosexual
group. Pearsons correlations were computed between sexual orientation exclusivity
status (exclusive v. nonexclusive) and the sexual behaviors and attitudes outcome
variables (Tables 3 and 4). The nonexclusive group was on average 2.3 years younger
than the exclusive group, t-test (201) = 4.46, p < .001. Therefore, partial correlations
between the two same-sex interest groups and the outcome variables are presented
controlling for age. Equal numbers of both White and non-White participants were
categorized as exclusive and nonexclusive, (1, N = 203) = 2.2, ns, and therefore race
was not considered in further analyses. The count variables (number of sex and casual
sex partners) were log transformed before running the statistical analyses to overcome
non-normality of the distributions. In order to avoid reducing the power of the
comparisons in this exploratory study with a relatively small sample, we did not apply
Bonferroni corrections (Perneger, 1998).
Nonexclusive women differed from exclusive women on most outcome variables.
They were more likely to have had at least one same-sex partner (15% v. 0%), were
Page 14 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
marginally more likely to have had casual sex (59% v. 75%), had significantly more sex
partners, had more casual sex partners, held more positive attitudes toward casual sex,
were more liberal in political ideology, and were marginally less religious (Table 3).
Consistent with predictions, nonexclusive women had their sexual debut approximately
1.5 years earlier than exclusive women, had higher scores on the nonmonogamy scale,
and expressed more interest in future casual sex engagement (18% v. 37%); however,
these differences failed to reach statistical significance, most likely due to insufficient
power.
By contrast, exclusive and nonexclusive men were similar on nearly all measures.
After controlling for age, nonexclusive men were more accepting of nonmonogamy than
exclusive men and were marginally more likely to desire casual sex in the future (59% v.
40%) (Table 4).
[Insert Table 3 here]
[Insert Table 4 here]
One possible explanation for the finding that only nonexclusive women but not
men differ in their sexual outcomes from exclusive peers is that women simply exhibit
higher average same-sex interest than men; that is, this sex difference is due to the fact
that the nonexclusive men are not nonexclusive enough. To rule out this possibility two
additional analyses were performed. We first compared exclusive men with the 25% of
the highest same-sex interest nonexclusive men (N for nonexclusive = 13). The results
were virtually identical to the ones obtained for the entire sample as reported in Table 4
even the most nonexclusive men were very similar to exclusive men (although this could
have been due to lack of statistical power). Next we repeated the comparisons between
Page 15 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
exclusive and nonexclusive women, excluding the 25% highest same-sex interest women
(N for nonexclusive = 56). This reduced the womens mean of same-sex interest to 6.4
(SD = 5.8), which was comparable to the mens mean, t (178) = 1.7, p > .05. After
controlling for age, this less nonexclusive group of women still differed on most outcome
variables from the exclusive ones: they were more liberal (r = -.32, p = .006), were more
accepting of casual sex (r = 0.4, p < .001), and had more sex partners (r = .25, p = .03)
and casual sex partners (r = .27, p = .02). The other comparisons were not statistically
significant. Thus, regardless of the degree of same-sex interest, differences in sexual
outcomes between exclusive and nonexclusive women remained significant, while
nonexclusive men closely resembled exclusive ones. These results suggested that
nonexclusivity had different meanings for women and men and that this difference was
not a matter of degree.
Finally, we explored whether sexual outcomes were affected by the within-sex
differences in degree of same-sex interests. To test whether sexual attitudes and
experiences become more liberal as the degree of same-sex interests increase, same-sex
interest scores of nonexclusive individuals were correlated with the outcome variables.
Due to the nonnormality of same-sex interest scores, they were first log transformed and
partial correlations after controlling for age were performed. As womens same-sex
interests increased, they manifested lower religiosity, greater interest in nonmonogamy,
and marginally greater acceptance of casual sex (Table 5). They were more likely to have
had casual sex and same-sex partners, had more total and casual sex partners, and showed
a trend toward earlier sexual debut. Degree of same-sex desires among heterosexually-
identified men was not significantly correlated with any outcome variables, although as
Page 16 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
they became less exclusive in their desires, they showed trends toward more liberal
political attitudes and acceptance of nonmonogamy.
[Insert Table 5 here]
Discussion
The majority of heterosexually-identified young adults in this study (84% of
women and 51% of men) reported the presence of same-sex sexuality in at least one
sexual orientation indicator sexual attractions, fantasies, or behaviors. Our hypothesis
that individuals with nonexclusive sexual interests (some degree of same-sex attractions
and/or fantasies) would be more liberal in both their sexual attitudes and sexual histories
compared to exclusively heterosexual individuals was supported for the women.
Furthermore, as the degree of same-sex interests in women increased, their attitudes
became more permissive and their sexual experiences more extensive. In contrast, the
presence and extent of same-sex interests in the heterosexually-identified men were
largely unrelated to their sexual behavior and attitudes; nonexclusive young men were
virtually indistinguishable from their exclusive heterosexual peers. This difference
between women and men in the role nonexclusivity played in sexual attitudes and
behaviors could not be attributed to womens higher average same-sex interest.
Our findings for young women could be explained by two factors. Perhaps same-
sex interests in women are but one manifestation of a high general sex drive, and thus
women who are generally more sexual in other aspects (for example, greater number of
sexual partners or earlier sexual debut) are also more same-sex oriented. This is
consistent with Lippas (2006) results that high sex drive is related to greater bisexuality
in women, but not men. Alternatively, nonexclusive women might be more sexually
Page 17 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
liberal than their exclusive peers because for women, but not men, same-sex desires are
but one manifestation of the broader social package of sexual permissiveness that
includes other liberal sexual attitudes and behaviors. From this perspective, women who
allow themselves greater permissiveness in these other aspects of this package would also
allow themselves to experience greater same-sex interest. This is consistent with the view
that many aspects of female sexuality are fluid and shaped considerably by personal
experiences and social influences (Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2008; Peplau & Garnets,
2000). Of course, these two views are not incompatible with one another. Nonexclusive
women could be different from their exclusive peers because of both higher sex drives
and greater social permissiveness.
The failure to replicate these findings with young men indicates that it is perhaps
necessary for men to reach a higher threshold of same-sex sexuality than the one typical
for our sample before differences in attitudes and behavior are apparent. However, even
the highest same-sex interest men in our sample (the 75
th
percentile and above) did not
differ in the outcome variables from their exclusive peers. One possibility is that the
necessary threshold is so high that men with this level of same-sex sexuality would find it
difficult to maintain a heterosexual identity. Alternatively, in contrast to women, men's
sexual attitudes and behaviors could indeed be unrelated to the level of same-sex interests
they experience. This is compatible with the growing consensus that male sexual
orientation has a strong biological component (Mustanski, Chivers, & Bailey, 2002) that
is functionally distinct from sex drive, which is implicated in Lippa's (2006) finding of no
relationship between high sex drive and bisexuality in men, as well as independent from
Page 18 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
social norms - Western constructions of male, but not female, sexual permissiveness
exclude any degree of nonheterosexuality.
Results in this study confirmed earlier reports that not all heterosexually-
identified young adults are exclusively other-sex oriented in all components of their
sexual orientation. The reasons why these nonexclusive individuals maintain a
heterosexual label, however, remain unknown. It is possible that their degree of same-sex
sexuality is not personally or socially salient enough to affect self-identification
processes. For example, same-sex sexuality could be construed as mere curiosity or
temporary experimentation with no significant implications for one's sexual and
romantic life. The privilege awarded to sexual majority members in our culture, coupled
with the relatively low level of same-sex interest among these individuals, might further
make the heterosexual label more appealing than nonheterosexual options.
Future studies could test this possibility by including a mostly heterosexual
label as a response option. If the label one chooses is simply a matter of degree of same-
sex interests, perhaps nonexclusive participants that traditionally choose the heterosexual
label would select this option instead. If, however, fear of social ostracizing plays a role
in the choice of labels, these individuals would maintain a heterosexual identity. Future
research should also examine how these nonexclusive heterosexually-identified
individuals differ from bisexually-identified peers. Is the difference simply in the degree
of same-sex interests or is it reflected in other aspects of sexual attitudes and behaviors?
Qualitative research is needed to more fully understand the meaning that nonexclusive
sexual interests have for heterosexually-identified individuals, particularly for men, and
the way in which these are incorporated into sexual identities and practices. Longitudinal
Page 19 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
designs are necessary to clarify how sexual attraction, fantasy, and behavior change over
time and influence future sexual identities, attitudes, and activities.
Our study adds to a growing body of research indicating that sexual orientation is
a complex phenomenon, particularly among current cohorts of adolescents and young
adults. The respondents who reported any same-sex sexuality were significantly younger
than those who claimed exclusive heterosexuality in all sexual orientation components.
This age difference might reflect a developmental trendthat is, nonexclusivity as one
aspect of the heightened sexual exploration typical of adolescents and young adults
(Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2008). Alternatively, the age difference might reflect a
secular trend toward nonexclusivity and sexual diversity among current generations of
young people that are open to exploring and expressing their sexual needs and desires
without necessarily changing their heterosexual label (Savin-Williams, 2005). Young
people who are aware and comfortable with their same-sex sexuality do not necessarily
need nor want to label themselves as gay, bisexual, lesbian, or a sexual minority, even as
they acknowledge and act on their same-sex attraction and fantasy. Without longitudinal
data we are unable to assess these trends, both of which could be simultaneously under
way.
An important limitation of this study is that participants were all students at an
elite university, which restricts geographical and class diversity. The young adults were
also politically liberal and non-religious, reflecting both the general composition of the
student body at this particular university as well as selection bias toward the more
sexually liberal embedded in the recruiting strategy for this study (clearly labeled as one
about sexuality). This prevents broader generalization of the results. However, given our
Page 20 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
recruitment strategy that included advertisements in several academic departments and
on-campus dormitories, the sample was more inclusive of various academic backgrounds
than studies that focus solely on undergraduate psychology students. Compared to a
recent nationally representative study of college students (Eisenberg, 2001), our sample
of students was somewhat older, more ethnically diverse, and more sexually experienced.
These differences are likely due to the inclusion of graduate and international students. In
addition, unlike Eisenbergs study, our definition of sexual activity included non-
intercourse genital acts, which likely resulted in a higher percentage of sexually
experienced participants.
Several other methodological limitations should be addressed in future research.
One is to vary the order in which women and men are presented with questions regarding
their attractions toward the same and the other sex. This would exclude the possibility
that the different degrees of nonexclusivity in sexual attractions and/or fantasies reported
by women and men were due to an order effect. The label straight should be added as a
response option to questions of sexual orientation identity (in addition to heterosexual),
as this is ever more frequently used in colloquial speech, particularly among young
people. The question regarding sexual fantasies used in this study might have been
somewhat linguistically ambiguous and future research would profit from a more precise
formulation. Finally, although the questions we used to assess sexual orientation
components have been modified from previous studies (particularly Ellis et al., 2005),
slight changes in the wording and in the approach (using bidimensional scales from 0-
100% instead of unidimensional) make our measures somewhat unique. Future research
Page 21 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
should compare our results to results obtained when using other, more established
measures of sexual orientation components.
This study, despite its limitations, contributes to our understanding of
inconsistencies in young peoples sexual orientation components, particularly as they are
reflected in sexual histories and attitudes. It also adds to the growing evidence of
differential organization of female and male sexuality. Finally, it reaffirms that the
sexually diverse world of today is one of far greater complexity than the past era of
clearly defined dichotomies.
Page 22 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
References
Austin, S. B., Ziyadeh, N., Fisher, L. B., Kahn, J. A., Colditz, G. A., & Frazier, A. L.
(2004). Sexual orientation and tobacco use in a cohort study of US adolescent girls
and boys. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 158, 317-310.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as
socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374.
Bogaert, A. F. (2003). Number of older brothers and sexual orientation: New tests and the
attraction/behavior distinction in two national probability samples. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 644652.
Bos, H. M. W., Sandfort, T. G. M., de Bruyn, E. H., & Hakvoort, E. M. (2008). Same-sex
attraction, social relationships, psychosocial functioning, and school performance
in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 59-68.
Boyce, W., Doherty-Poirier, M., MacKinnon, D., Fortin, C., Saab, H., King, M., &
Gallupe, O. (2006). Sexual health of Canadian youth: Findings from the Canadian
Youth, Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Study. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,
15(2), 59-68.
Busseri, M. A., Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Bogaert, A. R. (2006). Same-sex
attraction and successful adolescent development. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35, 563-575.
Busseri, M. A., Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Bogaert, A. R. (2008). On the
association between sexual attraction and adolescent risk behavior involvement:
Examining mediation and moderation. Developmental Psychology, 44, 6980.
Page 23 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Cardoso, F. L. (in press). Recalled sex-typed behavior in childhood and sports
preferences in adulthood of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men from
Brazil, Turkey, and Thailand. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, M. J. (2004). A sex difference in the
specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736-744.
Chung, Y. B., & Katayama, M. (1996). Assessment of sexual orientation in
lesbian/gay/bisexual studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 49-62.
Coleman, E. (1987). Assessment of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 9-
24.
DAugelli, T. R., Grossman, A. H., Salter, N. P., Vasey, J. J., Starks, M. T., & Sinclair,
K. O. (2005). Predicting the suicide attempts of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 35, 646-660.
DAugelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (2001). Suicidality patterns
and sexual orientation-related factors among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31, 250-264.
Diamond, M. (1993). Homosexuality and bisexuality in different populations. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 22, 291-310.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding womens love and desire.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2008). Adolescent sexuality. In R. M. Lerner
& L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, 3
rd
edition (479-523).
New York: Wiley.
Page 24 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Dickson, N., Paul, C., & Herbison, P. (2003). Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort:
Prevalence and persistence in early adulthood. Social Science & Medicine, 56,
1607-1615.
Ellis, L., Robb, B., & Burke, D. (2005). Sexual orientation in United States and Canadian
college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 569-581.
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Euton, S. J., Jones, J. N., & Schmidt, N. B. (2005). Gender role, sexual
orientation and suicide risk. Journal of Affective Disorders, 87, 35-42.

Gwadz, M. V., Clatts, M. C., Yi, H., Leonard, N. R., Goldsamt, L., & Lankenau, S.
(2006). Resilience among young men who have sex with men in New York City.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 3(1), 13-21.
Hoburg, R., Konik, J., Williams, M., & Crawford, M. (2004). Bisexuality among self-
identified heterosexual college students. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(1/2), 25-36.
Iemmola, F., & Ciani, A. C. (in press). New evidence of genetic factors influencing
sexual orientation in men: Female fecundity increase in the maternal line. Archives
of Sexual Behavior.
Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Sex differences in the
flexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective assessment.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 173-183.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human
male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Klein, F. (1990). The need to view sexual orientation as a multivariable dynamic process:
A theoretical perspective. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch
Page 25 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
(Eds.), Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 277-
282). New York: Oxford University Press.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable
dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35-49.
Lippa, R. A. (2006). Is high sex drive associated with increased sexual attraction to both
sexes? It depends on whether you are male or female. Psychological Science, 17,
46-52.
McBee-Strayer, S. M., & Rogers, J. R. (2002). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual suicidal
behavior: Testing a constructivist model. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior,
32(3), 272-283.
Mustanski, B. S., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2002). A critical review of recent
biological research on human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research,
13, 69-140.
Pathela, P., Hajat, A., Schillinger, J., Blank, S., Sell, R. & Mostashari, F. (2006).
Discordance between sexual behavior and self-reported sexual identity: A
population-based survey of New York City men. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145,
416-425.
Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding womens
sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 329-350.
Perneger, T. V. (1998). Whats wrong with Bonferonni adjustments. British Medical
Journal, 316, 1236-1238.
Page 26 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Plderl, M., & Fartacek, R. (2008). Childhood gender nonconformity and harassment as
predictors of suicidality among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual Austrians.
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for
male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(4), 461-467.
Rieger, G., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, M. J. (2005). Sexual arousal patterns of bisexual
men. Psychological science, 16, 579-584.
Robin, L., Brener, N. D., Donahue, S. F., Hack, T., Hale, K., & Goodenow, C. (2002).
Associations between health risk behaviors and opposite-, same-, and both-sex
sexual partners in representative samples of Vermont and Massachusetts high
school students. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 156, 349-355.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity
development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change
over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46-58.
Safron, A., Barch, B., Bailey, J. M., Gitelman, D. R., Parrish, T. B., & Reber, P. J.
(2007). Neural correlates of sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men.
Behavioral Neuroscience, 121(2), 237-248.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2006). Whos gay? Does it matter? Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15, 40-44.
Page 27 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2008). Then and now: Recruitment, definition, diversity, and
positive attributes of same-sex populations. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 135-
138.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2007). Prevalence and stability of sexual
orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 36, 385-394.
Sell, R. L. (1996). The Sell Assessment of Sexual Orientation: Background and scoring.
Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 1, 295-310.
Sell, R. L. (1997). Defining and measuring sexual orientation: A review. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 26, 643-658.
Snell, W. E., Fisher, T. D., & Miller, R. S. (1991). Development of the Sexual Awareness
Questionnaire: Components, reliability, and validity. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 65-
92.
Thompson, E., & Morgan, E. M. (2008). Mostly straight young women: Variations in
sexual behavior and identity development. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1521.
Tiggemann, M., Martins, Y., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Oh to be lean and muscular: Body
image ideals in gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity,
8(1), 15-24.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J. & Pryor D. W. (1994). Dual Attraction: Understanding
Bisexuality. New York: New York University Press.
Page 28 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Weinrich, J. D., Snyder, P. J., Pilllard, R. C., & Grant, I. (1993). A factor analysis of the
Klein Sexual Orientation Grid in two disparate samples. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 22, 157-168.
Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Savoy, H. B., & Hampton, D. (2008). Development,
reliability, and validity of the Measure of Sexual Identity Exploration and
Commitment (MoSIEC). Developmental Psychology, 44, 22-33.
Page 29 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Appendix
Attitudes Toward Nonmonogamy
1. If I could find a partner that wouldnt be jealous, I would love to try an openly
nonmonogamous relationship.
2. It would turn me on sexually to see my long-term partner enjoying sex with
another person.
3. No matter how much you love each other, sex life with the same partner will
become boring after some time.
4. Most people are not born monogamous; it is society that creates that ideal.
5. If I agreed to be in a monogamous relationship, I would find it pretty hard to resist
some very attractive people, even if things between me and my partner were
going great.

Attitudes Toward Casual Sex
1. People who engage in casual sex are decadent.
2. As long as all parties agree to it, there is nothing wrong about casual sex.*
3. Casual sex brings mostly negative consequences for all involved.
4. The amount of casual sex happening today disturbs me.
5. The widespread of casual sex encounters today is one of the indicators of the
moral decay of our society.
* reverse scored
Page 30 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Table 1. Demographic and sexual history characteristics of the sample separate by sex.
Women Men
M SD N M SD N P Value
Age 22.01 .33 96 23.40 .38 107 <0.001
Religiosity 2.07 .12 96 2.20 .12 106 n.s.
Ideology 2.03 .10 93 2.13 .10 102 n.s.
Nonmonogamy Scale 2.58 .12 96 3.28 .11 106 <0.001
Casual Sex Scale 5.10 .14 96 5.22 .14 106 n.s.
Age Onset of Sex 16.93 .27 83 17.87 .35 97 0.04
Number Sex Partners 7.08 .90 96 7.20 .81 107 n.s.
Number Casual Sex Partners 4.27 .68 96 4.9 .72 107 n.s.
% Yes N % Yes N P Value
Race White 61% 96 62% 107 n.s.
Raised in U.S. 80% 96 65% 107 0.02
Casual Sex Experienced 71% 96 69% 107 n.s.
Desire Future Casual Sex 33% 96 49% 102 0.03
Higher scores indicate greater religiosity (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate a more conservative political ideology (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of nonmonogamy/casual sex (range 1 - 7)

Page 31 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Figure 1. Percent of heterosexually-identified women and men reporting varying degrees
of same-sex attraction and fantasy.
>10% 1-10%
0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Same-sex attractions
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Women
Men

>10%
1-10%
0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Same-sex fantasies
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Women
Men

N (Women) = 119; N (Men) = 124

Page 32 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Table 2. Percentage of women and men indicating none, one, or more sexual orientation
components inconsistent with their chosen heterosexual label.

Number of inconsistent
components
Women Men
None 16% 49%
One 33% 33%
Two 41% 16%
Three 10% 2%


Page 33 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Table 3. Differences between exclusive and nonexclusive women in their sexual behavior
and attitudes.
Exclusive Nonexclusive Partial Correl.
controlling for
Age
Continuous variables M SD N M SD N r N
Religiosity 2.4 1.5 17 2.0 1.0 79 -0.20 96
Ideology 2.7 1.2 15 1.9 0.8 78 -0.32** 93
Nonmonogamy Scale 2.4 1.3 17 2.6 1.1 79 0.08 96
Casual Sex Scale 4.0 1.5 17 5.3 1.3 79 0.39** 96
Age Onset of Sex 18.1 3.0 14 16.7 2.2 69 -0.16 83
Number Sex Partners 4.2 5.2 17 7.7 9.4 79 0.26* 96
Number Casual Sex
Partners
2.1 3.5 17 4.7 7.1 79 0.30** 96
Dichotomous variables % Yes N % Yes N r N
Had Same-Sex Partner 0% 17 15% 79 0.22* 96
Had Casual Sex Partner 59% 17 75% 79 0.20 96
Desire Future Casual Sex 18% 17 37% 79 0.20 102
** p < .01; * p < .05; p < .10
Higher scores indicate greater religiosity (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate a more conservative political ideology (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of nonmonogamy/casual sex (range 1 - 7)

Page 34 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Table 4. Differences between exclusive and nonexclusive men in their sexual behavior
and attitudes
Exclusive Nonexclusive Partial Correl.
controlling for
Age
Continuous variables M SD N M SD N r N
Religiosity 2.3 1.2 55 2.1 1.3 51 -0.10 106
Ideology 2.2 0.9 53 2.0 1.0 49 -0.14 102
Nonmonogamy Scale 3.0 1.1 55 3.6 1.2 51 0.28** 106
Casual Sex Scale 5.1 1.5 55 5.3 1.5 51 0.09 106
Age Onset of Sex 18.
2
3.7 52 17.5 3.2 45 -0.04 97
Number Sex Partners 7.5 8.6 56 6.8 8.1 51 0.03 107
Number Casual Sex
Partners
5.0 7.2 56 4.8 7.7 51 0.08 107
Dichotomous variables % Yes N % Yes N r N
Had Same-Sex Partner 2% 56 6% 51 0.10 107
Had Casual Sex Partner 68% 56 71% 51 0.08 107
Desire Future Casual Sex 40% 53 59% 49 0.20 102
** p < .01; * p < .05; p < .10
Higher scores indicate greater religiosity (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate a more conservative political ideology (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of nonmonogamy/casual sex (range 1 - 7)


Page 35 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Table 5. Relationship between degree of same-sex interest (attraction and fantasy) and
sexual outcomes
Women Men
Partial
Correlation
N
Partial
Correlation
N
Religiosity -0.28* 79 -0.16 51
Ideology -0.06 78 0.27 49
Nonmonogamy Scale 0.28* 79 0.24 51
Casual Sex Scale 0.19 79 -0.18 51
Age Onset of Sex -0.21 69 0.03 45
Number Sex Partners 0.37** 79 -0.09 51
Number Casual Sex
Partners
0.43** 79 -0.04 51
Had Same-Sex Partner 0.31** 79 0.10 51
Casual Sex Experienced 0.30** 79 -0.14 51
Desire Future Casual Sex 0.13 79 0.07 49
Only participants who indicated some (non-zero) same-sex interest (either attractions or fantasies)
are included in this analysis
** p < .01; * p < .05; p < .10
Higher scores indicate greater religiosity (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate a more conservative political ideology (range 1 - 5)
Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of nonmonogamy/casual sex (range 1 - 7)

Page 36 of 36 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

You might also like