Arch Sex Behav DOI 10.1007/s10508-016-0711-9

COMMENTARY ON VAN ANDERS (2015)

The Rainbow Becomes a Spectrum Meredith L. Chivers1

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Sexual orientation research has reached a crossroads as the very concept of what is a ‘‘sexual orientation’’ is being questioned (Vasey & Lalumie`re, 2012). At the Puzzle of Sexual Orientation workshop in 2010 (a group of sexuality scholars meeting every 5 years for the past 20 years), the definition of sexual orientation broadened to include multiple other dimensions, including age, sexual activity preferences, and asexuality, among others. As for the substrate of sexual orientation, what is being‘‘oriented’’(Diamond, 2003), toward what, and how, we collectively engaged the problem of how components of sexual orientations fit together, the dimensions upon which sexuality could and did vary, and how we could begin to renovate the construct of sexual orientation to better fit the totality of variation in human sexuality. What was lacking, I believe, was a framework to begin organizing these concepts. Enter van Anders’ (2015) Sexual Configurations Theory (SCT). Admittedly, my first read of SCT left me perplexed and I was stuck on whether it really was a theory. Following the tenet of Ockham’s Razor—which suggests a good theory brings parsimony—I tried to find parsimony in SCT but couldn’t. In the place of a greater order or simplicity was a ‘‘Big Bang’’ in the birth of a new universe of multidimensional erotic and nurturant orientations. Like the black holes (that’s what they looked like to me!) that represent each sexual parameter, I wondered if there was too much gravitational force from a dominant system of thinking about sexual orientations to let the light escape. Or was it that the body of empirical research examining many of the invoked sexual phenomena (e.g., polyamory) were not yet & Meredith L. Chivers [email protected] 1

Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada

developed enough to provide the solid empirical support that such a bold and visionary step forward needs? van Anders smartly engaged these possibilities and gave the reader a roadmap to understand why SCT is a theory, fully admitting there will be limitations, but also highlighting that the intent of her work is not to produce the final word on the phenomena described therein, but to ‘‘make for better science.’’ This is where I see the strengths of SCT, a starting place for multidimensional sexualities to be described and integrated, a beginning to the reimagining of the sexual and partnering landscape that explodes previously linear and two-dimensional conceptualizations of sexuality. SCT puts on the map aspects of sexuality that have previously operated outside the star system (to extend the astronomy metaphor), described as celestial bodies but whose orbits and relationships with other bodies were not yet understood within the galaxy, such as demisexuality, polyamory, gender-notperson eroticism, among many others. This is the tour-de-force of van Anders’ theory—an attempt at definition and unification of seemingly chaotic aspects of sexuality. Even if the reader is doubtful about the theoretical strength of SCT, it is an excellent primer into the world of gender and sexual diversity, revealing untapped sources of variation that will hopefully reinvigorate the science of sexual orientations (configurations?). As a sexual orientation researcher, I am tremendously grateful that van Anders put this into the literature; it’s a fantastic place to start. In this way, van Anders has placed a prism in a singular beam of light previously defined as‘‘sexual orientation’’anda broader spectrum has emerged. Among the insights that I believe will prove valuable as the science of sexual orientations/configurations moves forward is the reality of individuals having multiple configurations along numerous parameters versus one monolithic ‘‘sexual orientation.’’ This multiplicity will be a challenge in terms of identifying ‘‘true’’ forms of sexual variations. Diamond (2005) has

123

Arch Sex Behav

raised this issue many times, the issue of what‘‘counts’’in terms of defining same-sex sexuality; for example, does one sexual encounter with another woman count as a same-sex orientation? Does fantasizing about an other-gender partner mean a man isn’t gay? The intersection of these parameters may also bring fresh insights into aspects of sexual variations, perhaps allowing for better models of gendered attractions as variance attributable to other parameters, such as nurturance/partner number, can be measured and modelled. SCT also raises the question that, given the staggering number of esoteric configurations possible, particularly with the addition of‘‘sexual parameter n,’’why aren’t more people choosing diverse expressions of their sexuality, nurturance, eroticism, and partner number? The overwhelming majority express alloeroticism/nurturance focused on one other-sexed/gendered person. This gap in the presentation of SCT stuck with me throughout my read as I craved more data to quantify the population for whom SCT would provide a more valid phenomenological map of their sexuality versus the blunt intergalactic superhighway of the Kinsey scale. A better theory explains more of the observed variability, so how much more does SCT explain? In some ways, simply articulating parameters like partner number where previous theory did not will, by definition, explain more of the variation in sexual expression; there is simply now more to be observed! But I think SCT would still benefit from some empirically derived estimate to ground claims of greater explanatory power this model has in terms of capturing and defining diversity versus, for example, more traditional means of operationalizing sexual orientation. Along similar lines, elaboration on the processes underlying the development of each parameter would contribute to the understanding of why the universe of our sexualities was dominated by certain configurations; the distribution of these could inform understanding of their emergence and expression. van Anders chooses not to engage these etiological questions in SCT, but I hope either she or others will engage these questions and begin collating the relevant science. I deeply appreciated van Anders’ engagement of concepts of alignment or congruence between parameters as bona fide true forms of sexual phenomena. This perspective resonated with my own struggles in research on women’s sexual response and sexual attractions. The capacity for relative independence between facets of sexuality, such as sexual attractions, sexual responses, sexual identities, and for the capacity of these facets to morph with time, has, by comparison to the seemingly stalwart expression of aligned male sexual orientation (which I think is also going to get blown apart very soon), stymied some in terms of how to conceptualize what might seem too chaotic so as to represent a true form of female sexuality. Within sexual psychophysiology, there is a misguided obsession with high sexual concordance (correlations between subjective and objective measures of sexual response), wherein high agreement is lauded as a‘‘better’’or more desirable state, though the thresholds

123

for this congruence are never clearly articulated. Like sexual orientations, this is, unfortunately, also a gendered phenomenon, such that men’s sexual response, often showing higher positive sexual concordance than women’s (but not always!), has led some to the incorrect conclusion that men’s sexual response is somehow a more elegant and pure form, concordant and aligned in expected directions. Psychometric theory would, in its most basic form, support this idea, that convergence between indicators of a phenomenon suggests validity of that construct. Sexuality research is not unique in its prediction of alignment between indicators of a construct as a desired state; and it is also not the only field in which phenomena once thought to function in tandem have been repeatedly shown to operate with relative independence (see Hollenstein and Lanteigne [2014] for a discussion of psychophysiological assessments of objective-subjective concordance in emotion research). Recent research shows us that dynamic systems modelling can map the chaos, in particular the chaos of female sexuality (Farr, Diamond, & Boker, 2014), so perhaps part of the problem is not the chaos, but letting go of the expectation for a congruent, linear, and orderly universe of sexualities. I found it striking that the sexual diversity perspective van Anders engaged did not fully incorporate the more controversial and darker areas in the space–time of human sexuality, such as pedophilia (Seto, 2008) and rape (Lalumie`re, 2005). These less palatable sexual variations, though referred to in the paper (e.g., age preferences like pedophilia; activity preferences such as biastophilia), need to be included in SCT, along with their less sociopolitically problematic stablemates like teleiophilia and masochism, to name just two. van Anders proposed additional sexual parameters n, and invited (perhaps challenged) scholars with requisite expertise to define these parameters to describe variations in age, in consent, in sexual relationship power dynamics, and in sexual activities that involve genital interactions versus other dimensions of sensation such as pain. To not include these would be to limit the scope of Sexual Configurations to half the heavens, and neglect rich sources of variability that, for a variety of reasons (some of which are very good reasons), are blacklisted (just as same-sex sexuality was once also blacklisted; just as polygamy is currently culturally blacklisted). For example, scholars from a variety of disciplines might comment that it is an evolutionary and historical blip that eroticizing post-pubescent adolescents is considered problematic (Blanchard et al., 2009). A comprehensive theory of sexual orientations/configurations must explicitly address age and sexual activity preferences. Also missing from SCT is a discussion of autoerotic sexuality, reviewed and theorized with respect to other less typical sexual expressions in Lawrence’s (2009) essay on erotic target location errors. Autoerotic attractions have been documented as also varying by age, gender, and species, and therefore may constitute another configuration to consider, perhaps as dimensions of allo- to autosexuality. I appreciate that van

Arch Sex Behav

Anders chose to limit the scope of the SCT to alloeroticism but look forward to the application of SCT to autoeroticism, to object eroticism, and to other forms of sexual expression that defy more normative boundaries, such as age normativity (only reproductive-age adults are sexual or sexually attractive, such that minors and seniors are both sexually inert or sexually unattractive), alloerotic normativity (that one’s sexuality must be expressed with another individual), and human-partner normativity (that sex with creatures other than humans is shameful, perverse, and inherently harmful). These other forms of sexual expression are overlooked in SCT and I hope will be articulated in an accompanying paper or explored by other scholars. With this depth of revision to the concepts of sexual orientation and configurations van Anders’ SCT initiates, I look forward to an explosion of definitions of new parameters. A forthcoming challenge, however, will be to understand their interrelationships. van Anders provides guidance on visualizing these aspects of sexuality as statuses and orientations within each parameter, but how do we get to the 4th, 5th, and 6th dimensions as these parameters overlap? SCT is phenomenologically descriptive at the parameter level but more discussion of how interrelationships between multiple phenomena could have been explored by those seeking to understand the factors associated with a range of sexual diversities. On the whole, however, I believe van Anders is proposing a bold new perspective on sexuality that could bring a necessary paradigm shift in how we conceptualize the intersections of multiple facets of eroticism and nurturance, among other parameters. As the rainbow of gender and sexual diversity becomes a more densely populated spectrum, SCT is tremendously useful in defining, reorganizing, and setting the stage for sexual orientation scholars to continue a process of looking beyond

gendered attractions to study sexuality. As I prepared for the 5th meeting of the Puzzle of Sexual Orientation Workshop in July 2015, I look forward to continued transformation.

References Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., … Klassen, P. E. (2009). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 335–350. Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.173. Diamond, L. M. (2005).‘‘I’m straight, but I kissed a girl’’: The trouble with American media representationsof female-female sexuality.Feminism & Psychology, 15, 104–110. doi:10.1177/0959353505049712. Farr, R. H., Diamond, L. M., & Boker, S. M. (2014). Female same-sex sexuality from a dynamical systems perspective: Sexual desire, motivation, and behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1477– 1490. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0378-z. Hollenstein, T., & Lanteigne, D. (2014). Models and methods of emotional concordance. Biological Psychology, 98, 1–5. doi:10.1016/j. biopsycho.2013.12.012. Lalumiere, M. L. (2005). The causes of rape: Understanding individual differences in male propensity for sexual aggression. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Erotic target location errors: An underappreciated paraphilic dimension. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 194–215. doi:10.1080/00224490902747727. Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1213. Vasey, P. L., & Lalumie`re, M. L. (2012). Introduction to the special section ‘‘The Puzzle of Sexual Orientation: What Is It and How Does It Work?’’ Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 11–12. doi:10. 1007/s10508-012-9932-8.

123

The Rainbow Becomes a Spectrum.

The Rainbow Becomes a Spectrum. - PDF Download Free
340KB Sizes 3 Downloads 4 Views