Evidence for more fluid sexuality in women

As bisexuality has become more acceptable in the lesbian community, fluidity of
sexual orientation among women, especially those who are younger, has either
increased or become more visible. The phenomenon has become common enough to
be named on college campuses; such young women are jokingly called 'LUGS'
(Lesbian Until Graduation).

The idea that women may have more changeable sexual orientations than men is not
new. Kitzinger and Wilkinson (1995) have looked at women who describe themselves
as lesbian after first portraying themselves as heterosexual, and noted the greater degree
of fluidity of both sexual identity and sexual behaviour in women as compared to men.
As they report, not only have the vast majority of lesbians had heterosexual experiences
and prior heterosexual identities, but large numbers of lesbians--perhaps as high as
46%--maintain occasional sexual encounters with men even after 'coming out' as gay.
Indeed, the very first survey of the behaviour of self-identified lesbians, done in 1959 by
the Daughters of Bilitis (a lesbian homophile group), showed that 98% of their
members had experienced heterosexual encounters in the past. Undoubtedly some of
them did so in order to try to be straight or to 'pass' as heterosexual (Conrad, 2001).

What is novel is a back and forth movement between lesbian, bisexual, and
heterosexual identities in multiple directions. Diamond (2003) studied college age
women who described themselves as lesbian or bisexual over a five year period and
found that one quarter moved away from those identities, with half referring to
themselves as heterosexual and half refusing all labels. Interestingly, none of her sample
described their lesbian/bisexual experiences as 'a phase;' all were open to the idea that
their orientation might change again in the future. Contrary to our cultural model of
sexual identity, these women were viewing this facet of their sexuality as an indicator of
their current lifestyle rather than an essential biological component of their being.

Physiologically-based research has supported these epidemiological observations.

Chivers et al. (2003) showed gender differences when looking at the sexual arousal
patterns of gay men, heterosexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbians. Men were
found to be specific in their arousal, that is, gay men were aroused by gay erotica and
straight men by heterosexual videos. In contrast, women showed equal arousal to
both lesbian and heterosexual erotica regardless of their sexual orientation.

Evidence from a variety of sources has led some health professionals (Peplau,
2000, 2001; Diamond, 2003) to theorize that sexual orientation has different
meanings for men and women, and that for women, romantic love and sexual desire
are both more distinct from each other and at the same time less linked to the gender
of the partner. In other words, women are more bisexual but also can fall in love with
people to whom they are not strongly sexually attracted.

Preliminary results of the institute for personal growth (IPG) female sexuality survey

IPG is a New Jersey-based private practice agency specializing in work with sexual
minorities. In an effort to obtain data not based on a clinical sample, IPG recently
began to collect both 'live' and internet-related anonymous survey information from
lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women about their sexual feelings, problems, and
behaviour. The first group of surveys compared 104 self-identified lesbians and 89
heterosexual women.

Sexual attractions and behaviour survey data accumulated by IPG support the
idea that women's sexual attractions are frequently bisexual. Fifty-two percent of
heterosexual women who were surveyed reported attractions to women, and 18% also
described same-sex sexual encounters. Seventy-five per cent of self-identified lesbians
reported attractions to men, and 80% had opposite-sex sexual experiences. (The fact
that the incidence of sexual behaviour exceeded sexual attraction suggests that some
lesbians had sexual encounters with men in order to bow to social pressure and 'pass'
as heterosexual.)

The concept of 'lesbian bed death,' is not supported by IPG survey data on sexual
frequency (although same-sex female couples do have slightly lower sexual frequency
than mixed gender couples). Sexual frequency data were analysed in two ways : all
respondents were asked about their sexual frequency in the last year, and the same
was asked for those currently in sexual relationships. Data were grouped by the
gender of the current partner rather than labelled self-identification. The total sample
included about three-quarters of respondents in relationships and one-quarter who
were single.

There were no differences in sexual frequency between lesbians and heterosexual
women (although single women in general did have slightly fewer sexual encounters
than those in relationships). Among those currently in relationships (and controlling
for the duration of the connection), there was a small but significant difference
(p 5 0.05) in sexual frequency between women in relationships with other women
(WWs) compared to those in relationships with men (WMs). WWs were slightly less
sexually active than WMs, although both groups had sexual experiences on average
about once-per-week--hardly sexually abstinent! It is worth noting that while it may
be accurate that lesbian couples have slightly fewer sexual experiences than those who
are heterosexual, only 17% of WWs and 12% of WMs in our sample report sexual
frequency of once a month or less.

Other IPG data suggest sexual robustness on the part of lesbians and/or women in
current relationships with women. Lesbians reported significantly fewer sexual
problems than heterosexual women (p 5 0.02), including fewer orgasm problems
(p 5 0.03), less trouble lubricating (p 5 0.003), less pain with vaginal entry
(p 5 0.005) and, interestingly, less sexual guilt (p 5 0.03) despite the stigma attached
to lesbianism.

Looking more closely at women in current relationships, and again controlling for
relationship duration, 90% of the WWs reported that they 'usually orgasm', as
compared to 73% of the WMs (p 5 0.005). WWs also spent more time on a typical
sexual encounter (30 ­ 60 minutes compared to more than 10 ­ 30 minutes
for WMs (p 4 0.000).In addition, WWs incorporated more non-penis oriented sexual
activities into a typical encounter than did WMs (p 5 0.000). Women with other women
kissed more (p 5 0.000), experienced more non-genital touching (p 5 0.007), more digital/
vaginal entry (0.001) and used sex toys to a greater extent(p 5 0.000). When considering
women who usually orgasm vs. those who do not, regardless of gender of
partner, experiencing regular orgasms was significantly associated with the duration
of sexual encounters and the number of non-penis oriented activities. Not
surprisingly, it was also significantly linked to being satisfied with the sexual,
emotional, and affectionate aspects of the relationship.

Discussion and conjectures

What does more recent data on lesbian sexuality mean, and what are the implications
both of this data and emerging trends in the lesbian community for female sexuality in
general? How does the newer information relate to earlier theories, especially ideas
about 'fusion' and 'lesbian bed death?'

Certainly the data reviewed and presented here argue for viewing female sexual
orientation differently than male sexual orientation--more fluid, more changeable
over the life cycle, probably less tied to gender, and therefore, more de facto bisexual.
But it also suggests that even a uni-dimensional continuum of sexual orientation,
such as the widely used Kinsey Scale, is not complex enough to explain female
orientation. If women change sexual self-identification as Diamond's work suggests,
and while at the same time neither negating the way they saw themselves earlier nor
ruling out future identity change, then we must re-think the essentialist position
suggested by the very word 'identity.' Diamond's model proposes that orientation in
women is an interaction between sexual desire and romantic love which she
conceptualizes as independent of each other but bisexual. Women tend to define their
sexual identity based on the gender of their current romantic partner, regardless of
their lifetime sexual experience.

In addition, the burgeoning gender experimentation in the lesbian community
forces a reconsideration of the interaction between gender and orientation. A well-known
and brilliant activist and author in the 'queer' community has gone from being
a self-identified butch S/M lesbian, to a butch who defined herself by her 'kinky'
identity more than by her sexual orientation, to an FTM (female to male transsexual,
with or without surgeries) coupled with another former lesbian who is now FTM in
what is technically a gay male relationship. Examples like this expose our current
models of sexual identity/orientation as simplistic, as merely crude beginning sketches
of what we will one day see as a complexly nuanced and ever-evolving interplay of
social, personal, and biological forces.The new discourse on frequency and passion in
lesbians and lesbian relationships is intriguing from a number of different points of
view. Earlier clinical and research portrayals of lesbians emphasized a kind of
passionless, cuddly and warm but not very hot sexuality. Despite the fact that even
IPG data throws question on how often 'lesbian bed death' actually occurs, it is still
unquestionably true that those in clinical practice in the lesbian community have seen
many lesbian couples who are not sexually active. But what does this mean? The
author used to cynically joke that 'lesbians have sex about as often as straight women
would if they thought they could get away with it.' The reality under this quip is the
assumption that sexual frequency is a measure of quality.

Future research may indeed show that sexless relationships are more common
among women and what that means, or that no frequency differences exist, or that
lesbians have slightly fewer sexual experiences than heterosexual women. The past
focus on lesbian bed death has seemingly distorted the bigger picture of sex between
women. Lesbian sexual activity may exemplify sex that is more tailored to women's
sexual needs--longer in duration, including non-genital as well as genitally-focused
acts, more varied sexual acts, and more reliably resulting in orgasm. If this is true then
one might reconceptualize the female sexual response as slower out of the gate, so to
speak, requiring more time, variety, and imagination--but ultimately full of passion.

What about the ubiquitous reports of 'lesbian bed death,'? Why did this
phenomenon (at least 20 years ago) appear to be one of the most prominent aspects of
lesbian sexuality? Several explanations are possible. First, it may be that younger
lesbians are freer of sexual inhibitions and less restrained by shame about their
sexuality. In other words, lesbian bed death may be an historically dated
phenomenon. To the extent that female couples are examples of 'hyper-female'
socialization--maybe women in general are feeling unimpeded in their sexual
behaviour. Second, it is possible that asexual relationships are, indeed, particularly
frequent in the lesbian community but not necessarily typical of the overall picture.
Perhaps future epidemiological research will discover a subgroup of sexless lesbian
relationships that is larger than the number of sexless heterosexual relationships.
Finally, it may be that in the past, clinicians saw more patients/clients who described
an asexual lesbian relationship than other kinds of asexual relationships simply
because lesbians are such huge utilizers of psychotherapy (Ryan & Bradford, 1993).

What other things might be learned from lesbian/queer women? Some of the
questions future IPG surveys hope to look at include women who refer to themselves
as bisexual, self-labelling on a 'butch/femme' continuum, looking at possible
differences among women with somewhat different gender identifications, consider-
ing 'leatherwomen' sexuality, investigating transgendered women at all points on the
gender continuum, examining the sexual repertoires of lesbians, bisexual, and
heterosexual women (which might show us something about women's personal
sexual behaviour preferences) and acquiring information about sexual vs. romantic
partners and about attraction and behaviour in order to shed more light on the
elements that constitute women's sexual identities. In short, 'queer' women's
sexuality has the potential to richly inform our general understanding of female
sexuality.

Acknowledgment:

The IPG research described in this report was done in collaboration with Susan
Menahem, Deborah Williamson, and Cheryl Langfeld.

MARGARET NICHOLS, PH.D
Institute for Personal Growth, 8 South Third Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey 08904,
USA

References

BERNSTEIN, F. (2004). On campus, rethinking biology 101. New York Times, 3/7/2004, section 9, p 1.

BLUMSTEIN, P. & SCHWARTZ, P. (1983). American couples: money, work, and sex. New York: Morrow.

BOLONIK, K. (2004). Girls gone wild. New York Magazine, 1/12/2004, p. 18 ­ 23.

BURCH, B. (1982). Psychological merger in lesbian couples: a joint ego psychological and systems
approach. Family Therapy, 9, 201 ­ 208.

CHIVERS, M., RIEGER, G., LATTY, E. & BAILEY, J. (2003). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual
arousal. In press, Psychological Science.

COLE, E. (1993). Is sex a natural function: implications for sex therapy. In E. Rothblum & K. Brehony,
(Eds), Boston marriages: romantic but asexual relationships among contemporary lesbians (pp.188 ­
193). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

CONRAD, F. (2001). The Ladder 1959: DOB questionnaire reveals some facts about lesbians. Journal of
lesbian studies, 5(4), 1 ­ 24.

DIAMOND, L. (2003a). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing
romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological review, 110(1), 173 ­ 192.

DIAMOND, L. (2003b). Was it a phase? Young women's relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over
a 5-year period. Psychological review, 84(2), 352 ­ 364.

FADERMAN, L. (1981). Surpassing the love of men: romantic friendship and love between women from the
Renaissance to the present. New York: Morrow.

HALL, M. (2001). Not tonight, dear, I'm deconstructing a headache--confessions of a lesbian sex
therapist. In E. Kaschak & L. Tiefer, (Eds), A new view of women's sexual problems (pp. 161 ­ 172).
New York: Haworth Press.

HALL, M. (1984). Lesbians, limerance, and long-term relationships. In J. Loulan, (Ed.), Lesbian Sex, pp.
141 ­ 150. San Francisco: Spinsters Ink.

IASENZA, S. (2002). Beyond 'lesbian bed death': the passion and play in lesbian relationships. Journal of
Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 111 ­ 120.

IASENZA, S. (1991) The relations among selected aspects of sexual orientation and sexual functioning in
females. Dissertation Abstracts International. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International (No.
9134752).

KASCHAK, E. & TIEFER, L. (2001). A new view of women's sexual problems. New York: Haworth Press.

KITZINGER, C. & WILKINSON, S. (1995). Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism: the discursive
production of lesbian identities. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), p 95 ­ 104.

KLEINPLATZ, P. (2001). New directions in sex therapy: innovations and alternatives. Philadelphia: Brunner
Routledge.

LEVY, A. (2004). Where the bois are. New York Magazine, 1/12/2004, 23 ­ 27.

LOULAN, J. (1984). Lesbian sex. San Francisco: Spinsters Ink.

MATTHEWS, A., TARTARO, J. & HUGHES, T. (2003). A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual
women in committed relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(1), 101 ­ 114.

MORIN, J. (1995). The erotic mind. New York: Harper Collins.

NICHOLS, M. (2002). Sex therapy with sexual minorities. In S. Leiblum & R. Rosen, (Eds), Principles and
practices of sex therapy, 3rd edn. (pp. 335 ­ 367) New York: Guilford Press.

NICHOLS, M. (1995). Sexual desire disorder in a lesbian couple: the intersection of therapy and politics.
In R. Rosen & S. Leiblum, (Eds), Case studies in sex therapy (pp. 161 ­ 175). New York: Guilford
Press.

NICHOLS, M. (1994). Therapy with bisexual women: working on the edge of emerging cultural and
personal identities. In M. Mirkin, (Ed), Women in context: toward a feminist reconstruction of
psychotherapy (pp. 149 ­ 169) New York: Guilford Press.

NICHOLS, M. (1990). Lesbian relationships: implications for the study of sexuality and gender. In D.
McWhirter, S. Sanders, J. Reinisch, (Eds,), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: concepts of sexual
orientation (pp.351 ­ 363), London: Oxford University Press.

NICHOLS, M. (1988). Low sexual desire in lesbian couples. In S. Leiblum & R. Rosen, (Eds), Sexual
Desire Disorders (pp. 387 ­ 412). New York: Guilford Press.

NICHOLS, M. (1987). Lesbian sexuality: Issues and developing theory. In Boston Lesbian Psychologies
Collective, (Ed), Lesbian psychologies: explorations and challenges (pp. 97 ­ 125). Chicago: University
of Illinois Press.

PARDIE, L. (1997). Merger and fusion in lesbian relationships: a problem of diagnosing what's wrong in
terms of what's right. Women & Therapy, 20(3), 51 ­ 61.

PEPLAU, L. (2003) Human sexuality: how do men and women differ? Current Directions In Psychological
Science, 12(2), pp. 37 ­ 40.

PEPLAU, L. (2001). Rethinking women's sexual orientation: an interdisciplinary approach. Personal
Relationships, 8(1), 1 ­ 19.

PEPLAU, L. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding women's sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(2), 329 ­ 350.

ROTHBLUM, E. & BREHONY, K. (1993). Boston marriages: romantic but asexual relationships among
contemporary lesbians. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

WEISE, E. (1992). Closer to home: bisexuality and feminism. Seattle: Seal Press.