Home » Posts tagged 'Sexual Orientation' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: Sexual Orientation

The Concept of Double Jeopardy: A Look At The Lives Of Multiply Disadvantaged Individuals

Black Feminism Symbol

To my surprise, I came across an article posted on Huffington Post yesterday that mentions “double jeopardy” — here, in the academic sense.  The article reviews a study published recently in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology that found that leaders of unsuccessful companies in a fictitious news story were more harshly criticized when they were Black women.  That is, Black women faced more penalties (in this case, criticism) than Black men, white women, and white men:

In a study conducted by Rosette and Livingston, 228 participants read fictitious news articles about a company’s performance, including permutations in which the leader was black or white, male or female and successful or unsuccessful. What they found was that black women who failed were viewed more critically than their underperforming white or male counterparts — even those of the same race.

What Is “Double Jeopardy”?

I say, “to my surprise,” because a quick search for “double jeopardy” on Google yields site after site about the movie, Double Jeopardy, featuring Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd; a search on Wikipedia also yields a page about the film, as well as a few pages about the legal concept of double jeopardy.  Ironically, the legal meaning of double jeopardy, in which a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime, somewhat counters the academic meaning of the term.  In this sense, double jeopardy refers to the additional barriers and burdens faced by individuals who hold multiple disadvantaged statuses (e.g., Black women) compared to their singly disadvantaged (e.g., white women and Black men) and privileged counterparts (e.g., white men).

As early as the late 1960s, the term double jeopardy came into use to highlight the unique experiences of Black women, particularly their simultaneous exposure to racism and sexism (and classism). As the second wave feminist movement made progress through the 1960s and 1970s for women’s rights, calls from Black, Chicana, and multicultural feminists, lesbian feminists, and other women who faced other forms of oppression other than sexism to attend to the diverse needs and experiences among women grew louder.  Various feminist activists and scholars worked intensely to draw attention to the fact that the category of “woman” and all of its associated experiences and obstacles is not universal; many advocated for a perspective that considers the intersections among sexism, racism, and classism.

Double Jeopardy Versus Intersectionality

Over time, awareness of the full array of systems of oppression that operate simultaneously has evolved to include heterosexism, ableism, ageism, fatphobia, xenophobia, and so forth.  Obviously, one can be disadvantaged in multiple ways or face “multiple jeopardy,” for example, as a lesbian, woman, Latina, and working-class person.   In fact, in my own research, I have found just that: among 15-25 year olds, the more disadvantaged statuses an adolescent or young adult holds (among race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and social class), the more forms of discrimination one faces (e.g., race and gender and sexual orientation discrimination).  And, as a result, these multiply disadvantaged individuals face double or multiple jeopardy in mental and physical health; that is, partially because of their disproportionate exposure to discrimination, they face even more depressive symptoms and worse physical health than more privileged youth.

While the notion of multiple jeopardies — almost easily counted based on the number of disadvantaged statuses one holds — is still used in some research, especially in sociological work on health, it has fallen out of favor among scholars who study the intersections among race, gender, and class.  This is, in part, because the idea of adding up one’s statuses, essentially adding one’s exposure to sexism to one’s exposure to racism and so on, misses the ways in which these identities and systems of oppression intersect.  Or, said another way, racism + sexism + classism misses how one experiences the world as a working-class Black woman, an experience that is not merely the sum of working-class experiences + Black experiences + woman experiences.  These systems of oppression intersect and mutually reinforce one another in such a way, for example, that homophobic policies like the US military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy harm Black women more than any other group.

Should We Do Away With Double Jeopardy?

Well, if we meant the literal experience of multiple systems of oppression — yes, we should do away with it.  But, what I mean here is, if it seems the notion of “double jeopardy” misses the ways in which systems of oppression intersect, should we stop using it in the way that we understand the lives of multiply disadvantaged individuals?  Having used the concept in past and current research, it might seem I have a vested interest in calling for the continued use of the concept.

Like any good researcher, I would say the appropriateness, relevance, and usefulness of the concept depends on your research question.  In health research, documenting whether multiply disadvantaged groups are at elevated risk for illness and disease necessarily calls for a comparison with singly disadvantaged and privileged groups.  For example, lesbian and bisexual women’s elevated risk for obesity is identified by comparing them to heterosexual women, gay and bisexual men, and heterosexual men.  But, what causes that elevated risk — factors brought on or exacerbated by sexism and heterosexism — can be said to be evidence of double jeopardy (sexism + heterosexism) and intersectionality (the intersection of sexism and heterosexism).

As such, in general, I would recommend that we need both perspectives — multiple jeopardy and intersectionality — to fully understand the lives of multiply disadvantaged individuals and their more privileged counterparts.  Even if you use only one of these two perspectives, you are contributing to what little we know about the lives and experiences of, and challenges faced by individuals who hold multiple disadvantaged statuses.

Sexual Orientation: Nature? Nurture? Choice?

Recently, Sex in the City actress Cynthia Nixon remarked in an interview to New York Times magazine that she is “gay by choice”:

…for me, [homosexuality] is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not… As you can tell, I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.

In the midst of a long struggle for equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and queer people, the looping of this story in the media led many LGBT individuals to groan, “why would she say that?”  Their fear is that her declaration — her autonomous choice to be gay — can be used in efforts to oppose the advancement of sexual equality.  Putting the comment that she is “gay by choice” into context, looking at her full quote, she makes clear that the question of whether sexual identity — namely those non-heterosexual identities — is irrelevant.  However, through the wave of sensationalism and abbreviated quotes, the media has promoted the simple fact that Nixon has declared her sexual identity a choice.  Despite Nixon’s intentions and the content of the entire interview, the words “gay by choice” rouse up the continued debate over the origins of homosexuality and bisexuality.

Nature? Nurture? Choice? We’re Missing The Point!

More and more research out of biology, genetics, and other life sciences builds a case for the innate — possibly due to genes, hormones, or other biological factors — origins of sexual orientation.  And, many major academic organizations have made explicit the acceptance and appreciation of sexual orientation as a natural aspect of every human that should not be changed nor suppressed.  Yet, the overall question regarding the “true” origins of sexual orientation, and the oft-cited answer of choice, pervade rhetoric regarding equal rights for LGBT and queer people.  This is largely the result of the legal standard used to determine a minority’s group worthiness of being protected from discrimination: the status must be immutable.  And, legal standing aside, research suggests that heterosexuals are more likely to support LGBT rights when they believe sexual orientation to be fixed, innate, and/or genetic.

But, Cynthia Nixon has raised an important question.  The push to determine the origins of sexual orientation warrants the question, “why does it matter?”  As I just noted, civil rights legal tradition rests heavily on the immutability of a minority status to define a minority group as worthy of protection; and, it matters for changing attitudes about homosexuality and bisexuality.  But, why must one’s sexual orientation be determined at birth, fixed, or unchangeable to warrant respect, equality, and acceptance?  Why don’t we value individual freedom and choice with regard to consensual sexual and romantic relationships?

Complicating The Argument

Beyond asking why we are so fixated in determining the origins of sexual orientation, there are a number of other points that are missed in these debates:

  1. The one-sidedness of the question — “is it a choice — highlights the heteronormativity that shapes these debates.  We ask why people are or become lesbian, gay, or bisexual; we do not, however, ask why people are or become heterosexual.  That is, in treating heterosexuality as the norm, we take it for granted rather than question its origins.  We presume heterosexuality until proven otherwise (i.e., heterocentrism).
  2. The media stir about Nixon’s comments illuminate how fragile the understanding of sexual orientation as innate is.  It took only one celebrity to dissent from the “gay by birth” position to reopen the debates about the origins of sexual orientation.  Nixon does not serve as a spokesperson for LGBT and queer communities.  Interestingly, other celebrities who echo the popular position that sexual orientation is innate have not garnered the same media attention.  Certainly, the press did not hound Lady GaGa for further explanation for her song, “Born This Way.”
  3. The debate over the origins of sexual orientation simplifies human development into an either/or construction.  That is, either sexual orientation is determined at birth, or it is chosen later in life, or it is the product of one’s upbringing.  Simplifying these options makes it easier to place blame: distant fathers, overbearing mothers, single mothers, bad parenting, sexual violence, poor gender socialization, bad decisions, and so on.  (As such, the devaluing of homosexuality and bisexuality is obvious, in that we are searching for someone or something to blame.)  Although, as a sociologist, my work focuses on uncovering the social factors that shape and constrain our lives, I acknowledge that much of human life is likely a complex combination of human agency, social experiences, and biology/physiology.  Sexual orientation is no exception.  Though hormones may be the vehicle for sexual desire, our social experiences shape who and what we find desirable; in fact, much of what we find desirable are social constructs (e.g., masculinity, femininity).
  4. These debates also simplify human sexuality.  When we ask whether sexuality is a choice, are we referring to one’s choice to engage in sexual and romantic relationships with an individual of a particular gender?  Or, does one choose who one finds sexually attractive?  Or, is the choice really in the particular sexual identity one takes on?  Sexuality is complex and multidimensional.  Though we may choose to identify as bisexual, we may be exclusively attracted to women.  We may be mostly attracted to men but choose to equally pursue relationships with women, as well.  Also, we attend exclusively to gender in our conceptualization of sexual orientation.  In doing so, we are asking about the origins of being attracted to particular genders, but we typically do not think to ask about what causes us to be attracted to particular races and ethnicities, individuals of certain social classes, body shapes and sizes, and so on.  If we were to consider these dimensions of sexual desire, how strange it would seem to find evidence for a gene to be attracted to Asian-Americans or choosing to be attracted to tall women.

More research, both in the natural and social sciences, is needed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of sexuality, including its origins.  But, in the mean time, we should ask ourselves why it is so important to find the answer to “is it a choice?”  If, one day, we were to discover that sexual orientation is 100 percent one’s choice, do we no longer afford sexual minorities the same rights and protections as heterosexuals?  Or, if we isolate the “gay gene,” will we put the debate to rest, ensuring full sexual equality?  My pessimism says the debates would still continue, and there would be new eugenics-style initiatives to eliminate that gene.  Disdain for LGBT people is the root of the problem, not the origins of homosexuality and bisexuality.

A Night I Will Never Forget: Seven Years Out Of The Closet

No, as the title might suggest, this is not a post about a party I had to celebrate the seventh anniversary of coming out of the closet, embracing and publicly announcing my (now) queer sexual identity.  Though it has now been seven years since I first told another soul other than my own, I want to share the experience of another, yet equally important and memorable event.

A friend of mine recently came out to his family, to which he received a less than positive reaction.  Given that I knew that I would be in town, I decided to check with my parents to see if they would be interested in having dinner with him and me.  It might sound a little strange, but my intention was to give him living proof that parents who may initially not react favorably to their child coming out can, with time, arrive at near-total acceptance.  My parents initially said yes, but with a touch of humor that made me wonder whether they were agreeing to do so only to appease me.  I did not get much more from my father, which is not unusual for him (a man of few words on emotional matters), but my mother later sent me a reassuring email, complaining that she found it unfair that LGBT children continue to have to deal with negative reactions from parents.

We met for dinner last week, everyone except for me (because I was on spring break) still in work attire.  The first twenty minutes or so were a tad awkward with obligatory questions about how my friend and I know each other, where everyone works, where everyone is from.  But, then the elephant in the room was finally addressed – let’s talk about coming out and parents’ reactions.  I was confident that my parents would have positive things to share with my friend, but I had no idea just how honest and positive their stories would be.  Both my father and mother talked about what shifted them from an initial negative reaction (why did this happen?  who is at fault?  what could we have done differently?) to one of acceptance.  The primary force responsible for this shift was their recognition that I was successful in my career (still in college at the time) and continue to be, and that I decided to accept and admit to them my sexual identity to be happy.

What came as the biggest surprise to me, they recounted things that have happened along the way over the last seven years that reflected back my own experience with those same events.  For example, my mom noted the time she and my father sat in our family room (a room we hardly use) in the dark, with her consoling my crying father (who, at that point, had only cried twice in his adult life – the other time being when my grandmother died.)  She highlighted how it appeared as though they were grieving my death.  This is exactly how I recall the event, so it was quite surprising and validating to hear that she experienced the event in the same way.  Finally, what I became aware of through their individual journeys to accepting me as I am is that it seemed that most of the work to reaching acceptance was within themselves.  For all of the battles over choice of sexual orientation, what I am doing, who I am sleeping with, what groups I belong to, and what types of things I do on the internet (like blogging), the best thing I did to help them reach acceptance was to continue to be successful in all other areas of my life and be myself – the rest of the work fell on them to wrestle internally with their moral beliefs, religious upbringing, and parental love.

In the end, my parents were quite warm with my friend and did their best to reassure him that he need not feel ashamed of his sexual orientation and that his parents may eventually come around.  My mom even offered to connect with his parents, but further down the road when they have had more time to digest the news.  Seven years ago, my father reacted as though I had died and my mother had to deal with her worst nightmares as a parent come true (she said she knew since I was five that I was “different” than other boys).  There were regular fights and silences that shrouded some topics.  Today, my father regularly sends me emails about the debates over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and same-sex marriage and my mother has looked into getting involved with Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG).

From this event, I feel confident to say that, with time, families can become accepting of their LGBT family members.  I should admit that I am not out to a lot of extended family, either because of their age or because we are not all that close.  And, I see this as part of the reason why I do not see coming out as the end all, be all for everyone.  I do not necessarily think that we should expect everyone to be publicly out, as the consequences for doing so are too great for some people.  We as LGBT people are not a monolithic mass; some of us have to worry about the loss of our racial and ethnic communities, or being banished from our places of worship, or being disowned by our families.  Although, in one of my ideal worlds we would not need to come out, at least not anymore than heterosexuals, another of my ideal worlds is not needing to have specific labels for people based upon their preferences, tastes, and likes.  In the mean time, it is important and powerful for those who can afford to to come out given the impact contact with LGBT people has on supporting LGBT rights, but we also should be careful to avoid setting that standard for all LGBT people as our experiences and backgrounds vary.

There, for once I wrote a post that wasn’t all negative!

Same-Sex Couples Make Good (Or Even Better) Parents

Source: Donklephant

Note: this blog post was originally published on Kinsey Confidential.

Recent research on the impact of parents’ sexual orientation on their children has indicated that the children of same-sex couples are just as healthy and happy as the children of different-sex (heterosexual) couples.  In fact, they might even have an advantage over the children of heterosexual couples.

Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Parents

Researchers at the Williams Institute at UCLA have found that a substantial number of same-sex couples report having one or more children, a number that’s not far from the number of heterosexual couples that report having children.

A host of researchers in the social sciences have attempted to compare the parenting styles and effectiveness of same-sex and different-sex couples in an effort to replace myths about the impact of parents’ sexual orientation on children with documented findings.

Sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz conclude, in their review of these studies, that parents’ sexual orientation has little, if any, impact on children; in fact, parents’ gender actually has an impact that trumps the impact of sexual orientation.

That being said, then, it may come as no surprise that the latest study in this line of research has found some evidence that lesbians make better parents than heterosexuals: their children are less likely to trapped in rigid, traditional gender roles and are more likely to pursue prestigious male-dominated careers regardless of their gender.

Same-Sex Couples As Role Models For New Parents

Adding to this research is the awareness that same-sex couples, in general, tend to be more intentional and thoughtful in their journey to parenthood.

That is, unlike the ease at which heterosexuals may become pregnant, same-sex couples tend to pursue means that are not likely to occur by accident: adoption, egg/sperm donation, surrogate parents.

So, when same-sex couples do become parents, they have likely spent a great deal of time planning and strategizing, and have decided that they’re ready and willing to be parents. In addition to producing kids that are more likely to reject rigid gender roles and traditional gendered careers (e.g., women as nurses, men as doctors), same-sex couple parents can serve as a role model for others to be very careful and intentional in their sexual behaviors and family decision-making.

Open communication between partners and the use of safe sex practices (e.g., the pill, condoms, regular sexual health check-ups and sexually transmitted infection testing) can reduce the number of unexpected (and, in some cases, unintended) pregnancies, like that in the recent hit movie, Knocked Up.

Race and Ethnicity Affect Who Responds To You In Online Dating

Source: Current.com

Note: this was originally published on Kinsey Confidential.

In early October, OKCupid, an online dating website, released an analysis of racial and ethnic differences in response rates.  It seems love isn’t so color-blind after all.

The Study: Over One Million People

The OKCupid study assessed the responses of over one million site users.  They found that two individuals of any race can be compatible just to squash any doubts that the racial and ethnic differences found in responses is due to lack of compatibility between partners of different backgrounds.

Though any two people could be compatible, the study found some remarkable racial and ethnic dynamics:

  • Black heterosexual women respond the most to messages they receive on OKCupid, but heterosexual men of all races and ethnicities respond to messages from Black women the least.
  • White heterosexual men’s messages are responded to the most by heterosexual women of all races and ethnicities, yet they reply the least to any messages.
  • White heterosexual women prefer white men to the exclusion of men of color, yet Asian and Hispanic heterosexual women prefer white men even more exclusively.
  • There is little variance among heterosexuals in support for interracial marriages, with nearly all saying such relationships are not bad, but white heterosexuals prefer white partners much more than non-white heterosexuals prefer non-white partners.  The gap in same-race /ethnicity partner preference is larger between white and non-white heterosexual women.

What About Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay OKCupid Members?

In a later post, OKCupid released findings from an analysis of their members who are lesbian, bisexual, or gay.

It seems that some of the same patterns emerged among LGB people, but they were less prevalent.  For example, Black women were still responded to the least among all bisexual and lesbian women, but the difference was smaller than that among heterosexuals.

LGB people are much more in favor of interracial marriage, but the same gap in preference for same-race partners exists, though it is smaller.  That is, even white LGB people report a higher degree of preference for same-race partners than non-white LGB people.

In another post, I mentioned a survey of young adults’ relationship values, which found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were more open to dating people of different races and ethnicities than were heterosexuals.

Are There Any Implications?

Certainly, as I argued in an earlier post, these findings suggest that we  should continue to recognize how race and ethnicity, as well as other social factors, play into our sexualities.

Some groups, particularly people of color, have access to smaller dating pools.  This can translate into a number of things, including greater difficulty finding romantic sexual partners and possibly “lowering” one’s standards for potential partners.

In that earlier post, I referenced a study on gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), who do not identify as gay/bisexual.  The study found that, because Black men were ranked as the least preferable partner relative to white, Latino, and Asian men, their dating pool was smaller, which increased their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Is It Racism?

The OKCupid blog post suggests that these patterns of response rates by race and ethnicity reflect the continued existence of racism in the United States.  Some social scientists who have studied racial attitudes have included questions about one’s willingness to date someone of a different race or ethnicity.

But, I hesitate to suggest that a preference for one’s own race and ethnicity, or certain races and ethnicities over others, is a sign of racism.  Instead, I would argue that our dating and sexual preferences are shaped by social factors, including racism.

We can see that white (Anglo) standards of beauty are still the dominant standard in the US and that people of color are pressured to meet those standards by altering their hair, skin color, even facial features through cosmetic surgery.

And, sadly, as the National Health and Social Life Survey found in the mid-1990s, partners that come from different backgrounds (e.g., education, race, religion) break up at a higher rate than partners of similar backgrounds, largely because they are not as well integrated into each others lives (e.g., friendship circles, family).

Because of family and community pressures to partner with someone of the same background, people may be less likely to even attempt to start a relationship with someone of a background different than their own.

But, it is great to see that an overwhelming majority of people were in favor of interracial marriage in the OKCupid survey – a remarkable change over the last few decades in race relations.

And, as sociologist Michael J. Rosenfeld has found in his research on marriage patterns, the number of interracial and same-sex couples in the US have increased dramatically since the 1960s, primarily because adult children have become more independent from their families and home communities.