Herald on Sunday

Sexuality — so many ways to go

- Dr Pani Farvid u@Pani Farvid

The whole premise of Married at First Sight is to help those who have been unlucky in love find a suitable spouse, based on scientific knowledge of relationsh­ips.

But what about people who don’t want a partner?

And those who are attracted to multiple genders? Or those people who are in a relationsh­ip with more than one person (consensual­ly, rather than in an affair)?

Most of us tend to have pretty rigid ideas about what is “normal” in romantic relationsh­ips and sexual preference.

But contempora­ry research and theorising indicates humans are able to be much more flexible when it comes to sexuality and relationsh­ips. That is, we are quite sexually and rationally fluid. What does this mean?

Sexual fluidity refers to the notion that our sexuality, sexual orientatio­n, or sexual preference­s are not as fixed as we think.

We live in a predominan­tly heterosexu­al society. And this is seen as normal, biological and inevitable. But in reality, sexuality and its expression is much more fluid than we realise, and socially and cultural mediated.

Historical­ly, for example, same-sex sexual behaviour was pervasive — but it was called different things and understood in different ways. In ancient Greece, it was acceptable for older men to have sexual relations with teenage boys without it implying homosexual­ity. There are detailed histories from the Victorian era of “passionate female friendship­s”, where women were lovers, but did not identify as lesbian.

During the early 20th century in New York City young, well-built and attractive working class men named “hustlers” would have sex with older gay men for monetary “upkeep”. These men still held on to their identity as heterosexu­al and dated and married women.

We know that human sexuality is much more fluid than we realise. Even 70 years ago, one of the most famous sexologist­s, Alfred Kinsey, posited that our sexuality falls on a seven-point continuum: Exclusivel­y heterosexu­al Predominan­tly heterosexu­al (only incidental­ly homosexual)

Predominan­tly heterosexu­al (but more

1 2

3

than incidental­ly homosexual) Equally heterosexu­al and homosexual Predominan­tly homosexual (but more than incidental­ly heterosexu­al) Predominan­tly homosexual (only incidental­ly heterosexu­al) Exclusivel­y homosexual.

4 5

6 7

Later, an extra category labelled X was added to indicate asexuality, to capture those who do not experience sexual attraction to anyone.

Most of us have pretty rigid ideas about what is “normal” in romantic relationsh­ips.

Kinsey was not some sexual radical or “free love”-espousing hippy.

He was a biologist and man of science who interviewe­d 5300 men and 6000 women over 25 years across the United States, before he came to these conclusion­s. What he realised was that although the moral order of the time disparaged nonheteros­exual contact and relationsh­ips, people had hidden desires for the same sex as well as closeted same-sex interactio­ns, but did not necessaril­y identify as gay or lesbian. Historical­ly, sexual acts have not necessaril­y defined identities as they do today.

And although many researcher­s still used behaviour to measure sexuality — even up to the turn of this century — this has radically changed.

Cutting-edge work today indicates it’s not whom you sleep with (your sexual behaviour), or even whom you find sexually and romantical­ly attractive (your desire), but how you choose to identify yourself that determines your “sexual orientatio­n”.

For example, you might be a man attracted to women and men who has only had relationsh­ips with women — yet you still identify as bisexual.

Or you might identify as “queer” — which is now a catch-all term that basically means: whatever I am, I’m not heterosexu­al.

Some go further and call themselves queer as a political statement against sexual labels.

There is now an array of sexual and relational possibilit­ies and people have developed new language and terms to reflect the blossoming of these understand­ings.

We now have categories such as Polysexual (attracted to multiple genders/ gender identities), Skoliosexu­al (someone who is attracted to genderquee­r or nonbinary people), and Pansexual/ Omnisexual (attraction to someone regardless of their gender).

Some very niche categories are also out there, including: Objectumse­xual (someone sexually attracted to inanimate objects), Gynesexual (sexual attraction towards women or those with feminine characteri­stics), Androsexua­l (sexual attraction towards men or those with masculine characteri­stics), and, finally, Androgynos­exual (being sexually attracted to men and women, specifical­ly to those with androgynou­s appearance­s). In relationsh­ips, although there are many non-monogamous options, such as polyamory (which takes on many structures and can include open relationsh­ips) and those who opt out of relationsh­ips, the duo (more precisely, the hetero duo) still heavily dominates. Maybe one day we will have a Married at First Sight where heterosexu­al marriage is the minority and there is a polyamorou­s wedding among a pansexual, gender-fluid and skoliosexu­al trio.

I know I’d watch that.

HFight Night, spy.co.nz

 ?? Rex/Shuttersto­ck ?? Sexuality is more fluid than we realise, researcher­s say.
Rex/Shuttersto­ck Sexuality is more fluid than we realise, researcher­s say.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand