HOMOSEXUALITY: GAY AND LESBIAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

In this section, I'll try to answer some basic questions. How many people are homosexual? Why are some people homosexual? Do some people who are not homosexual have sex with members of their own sex? Let's see what sociological answers we can find. That is, we will place the emphasis on the group or social context and be as objective as possible.

The Dilemma of Terms

Before we examine research and theory on homosexuality, we need to pause for a moment and consider terms. Terms have political meaning (they are seen by some as containing a bias in favor of or against something). Terms also have emotional content (people experience feelings when they hear or use them). In short, no term that refers to a matter of controversy is neutral for everyone, all terms arouse negative sentiments in someone, and no term will satisfy everyone. Even terms in common use in homosexual subcultures, such as gay and lesbian, are rejected by some homosexuals, who see them as oppressive (Yeung and Stombler 2000). In addition, the meanings of terms change, making a term that seems neutral at one point in time a matter of controversy at another point in time.

      Hoping to find language that no one will object to, social analysts have suggested a variety of terms, such as "same-sex love" (Rupp 1999), homoeroticism, and even "same-gender affectional and sexual relations" (Gagnon 2001). Some--often those who are involved in "same-sex sexual or love relations" (another possible term)--are using the term "queer." They have aggressively tried to lay claim to an identity by snatching a term of derision from heterosexuals and imbuing it with new meaning. They have been fairly successful at this, at least in some academic circles, and a subfield has developed called "queer theory" and "queer studies." To what extent this term will become popular or how long it will last is anyone's guess.

      I will use homosexuality to refer to sexual preference for members of one's own sex. Although this term has its detractors, it has a long history, and, as I see it from reviewing the alternatives, it is the most neutral, and yet standard, of terms available to refer to this aspect of human sexual behavior. Homosexuality is used in the full knowledge that no term in what has become a highly charged political matter (called "cultural politics") is entirely satisfactory.

      To place homosexuality in perspective, we first need to distinguish homosexuality from homosexual behavior. Where homosexuality refers to the sexual preference for members of one's own sex, homosexual behavior refers to sexual behavior between people of the same sex, regardless of whether they prefer same-sex partners or not. Many male prisoners, for example, prefer to have sex with women, but, since they can't, they engage in homosexual behavior.

Attitudes and Discrimination

Attitudes toward homosexuality and homosexual behavior vary widely around the world. The countries with the most accepting attitudes are probably Denmark, Holland, Norway, and Sweden, where same-sex marriages are legal. The countries with the most rejecting attitudes are probably Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, where homosexual behavior is punishable by death (Mackay 2000). Most societies fall between these extremes.

      In recent years, Americans have become more tolerant of homosexuality, but their attitudes are still largely negative. Despite the efforts of gay action groups to change laws, private, consensual sex between people of the same sex remains illegal in most states. As Table HS.1 shows, most Americans want it this way. Americans are fairly evenly split on this issue, however, and 44 percent would like to see consensual homosexual relations between adults legalized.

      From this table, you can see how attitudes vary by sex, race-ethnicity, age, education, income, and even region of the country. Younger people, college graduates, and those who have higher incomes express more favorable attitudes. Those most likely to favor the legality of private, consensual homosexual acts are white male college graduates who have high incomes and live in the West. Those most likely to want homosexual relations to be illegal are elderly black female high school graduates who have low incomes and live in the South.

      As this table shows, attitudes toward homosexuality are the least favorable in the South, the most favorable in the East. These attitudes are reflected in state law. Georgia, for example, has made sodomy (anal intercourse) punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Although marriage between homosexuals is not legal in any state, one of the Eastern states has come close to making it legal. In 2000, the Vermont legislature approved what it calls "gay unions." It reserved the term marriage for heterosexual couples, however. This fine distinction in terms--allowing homosexuals "legal unions" but not marriage--was intended to satisfy the concerns of heterosexual voters. It failed to accomplish its purpose, however, and an uproar of protest followed the passage of this law.

      You may wonder if Georgia's law that allows judges to sentence an adult to 20 years in prison for a private, consensual sex act could be constitutional. Many people thought it wasn't, and this law was challenged. In 1986, in Hardwick v. Bowers, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality (Wermiel 1986).

      Over the years, homosexuals have been the victims of violence. Out of concern that much violence motivated by bias was being overlooked, in 1990 the U.S. Congress authorized the FBI to collect data on hate crimes. Hate crimes are not new crimes, but traditional crimes that are now defined as motivated by bias against the victim, in this case, crimes committed against someone because that person is a homosexual. This law provides some measure of additional protection, but, as with any law, it is only as good as its enforcement.

Changing Relations

The overall situation of homosexuals in the United States has been changing. Due to protests by gay activists and the position taken by the American Civil Liberties Union, homosexuals face less discrimination than they used to. The Civil Service Commission no longer denies federal employment to homosexuals. Similarly, many multinational firms--from AT&T to IBM-- follow policies of not discriminating against homosexuals in hiring or promotion. San Francisco even seeks homosexuals to be members of its police force. Homosexuals used to be easy targets of politicians who wanted to ingratiate themselves with voters and further their own political ambitions. Today, for a politician to verbally attack homosexuals would be to risk his or her political career.

      Such changes, however, do not mean the end of open discrimination. The FBI and CIA, for example, will not knowingly hire homosexuals. And although the Defense Department follows a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, soldiers who are discovered to be homosexual are discharged from the military. In some work settings, however, notably the arts, homosexuals are more open about their sexual preference. Openness also varies by geography. Homosexuals are more open in some urban centers, such as San Francisco and New York, as compared to small towns in the South.

      Because of continuing hostility and discrimination, most homosexuals remain "in the closet"; that is, while they are at work and in most of their social relations, they conceal their sexual identity. For an analysis of their strategies of concealment, see the Cultural Diversity in the United States box.

Research on Homosexuality

The Kinsey research The most famous research--and for a long time just about the only research--on homosexuality was the Kinsey studies. Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist, and his associates included homosexuality in their classic 1948 study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Based on the experiences of about 5,300 men, Kinsey found that 37 percent of U.S. men had at least one sexual experience with a same-sex partner that resulted in orgasm. Many of these acts were sexual experimentation by adolescents. Almost all these males went on to live heterosexual lives. Kinsey also concluded that about 4 percent of U.S. males are exclusively homosexual throughout life.

      Kinsey's findings shocked the U.S. public and unleashed a storm of criticism in the academic community. It turned out that Kinsey's research had a major flaw: He had used a biased sample, and there was no valid way to generalize from his findings to the U.S. population. Kinsey had recruited some subjects from prisons and reform schools, inmates that hardly represent U.S. males. He also had interviewed only white males, and he had too high a percentage from the lower classes (Himmelhoch and Fava 1955).

      As I stressed in the materials on how sociologists do research (Chapter 2 in Essentials and Chapter 5 in the hardback text), if you use the right sample, you can generalize to an entire nation. If your sample isn't any good, however, you can't generalize to anything. And that is how bad Kinsey's sample was. Instead of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, his book should have been called something like Sexual Behavior of Lower Class, White American Males Who Have Been Locked Up in Prison. This at least would have been more accurate.

      Despite this fatal flaw, Kinsey and his associates do deserve credit for doing groundbreaking research in what had been a forbidden area. Unfortunately, Kinsey's research continued to be quoted as true for 50 years. In fact, some continue to quote Kinsey's findings today, although he hadn't used a representative sample of U.S. males.

      If it isn't 37 percent of U.S. males who have had sex with other males and 4 percent who are homosexual, then what percentages are correct? And what about women?

The Laumann research It took until 1994 to be able to answer these questions. Sociologist Edward Laumann headed a team of sociologists that studied U.S. sexual behavior. Because they interviewed a representative sample of the U.S. population ages 18 to 59, we can generalize their findings to the entire U.S. population of this age. As you can tell from Figure HS.1, Laumann found that over a five-year period, 4.1 percent of U.S. men and 2.2 percent of U.S. women had sex with someone of their own sex. If the time period is extended to include their entire lives, these totals increase to 7.1 percent of the men and 3.8 percent of the women.

      This is a far cry from Kinsey's 37 percent for men. But Kinsey could be right--if we refer to lower class, white U.S. men who have been incarcerated. Laumann is correct if we refer to the general U.S. population, ages 18 to 59.

      As Figure HS.1 also shows, 1.4 percent of U.S. women and 2.8 percent of U.S. men identify themselves as homosexual. These percentages are almost identical to Americans who report that they have had sex with a same-sex partner during the past year (1.3 percent of the women and 2.7 percent of the men). Even these totals may be slightly high, as the Laumann researchers counted as homosexual people who identify themselves as bisexual. Although Laumann's sample is excellent, giving us data from which we can generalize, as you will recall from the text's materials on how sociologists do research, some sociologists desire more qualitative data. They want to know what occurs when people interact with one another. (Recall the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research discussed in the chapter on methods.)

Qualitative research: the Humphreys sStudy To get qualitative information on homosexual behavior, sociologist Laud Humphreys (1970) devised an ingenious but widely criticized technique. Laud, a friend of mine in graduate school at Washington University, was "in the closet" at the time. He didn't reveal his own homosexuality openly until several years after he completed his research.

      Laud knew that some male homosexuals meet for impersonal sex in public restrooms, which they call tearooms. He began to study these encounters for his doctoral dissertation. Homosexuals who engage in sex in tearooms like to have a third person present, someone they call a "watch queen." This person warns them if he sees a stranger approaching. Humphreys took this role, which allowed him to be present and enabled him to make systematic observations of who does what with whom. He saw that to initiate sex these men used a system of gestures at the urinal, and then moved to a toilet stall for fellatio (oral sex). Their quick, anonymous sex usually occurred without the exchange of a single word. Another sociologist, Edward Delph (1978), confirmed the silence surrounding these sexual encounters.

      Humphreys was puzzled by something he observed. He found that 38 percent of the men who were having tearoom sex were married, and they identified themselves as heterosexual. He wondered if they were really heterosexual. If so, why were they having sex with other men? It turned out that these men were sexually frustrated with their wives. Tearooms gave them a sexual outlet that did not require an emotional commitment (which would interfere with their marriages), money (which they didn't want to waste), or socializing (which they didn't have time for--this was just a quick stop off the highway on their way home from work). In essence, the tearooms functioned as a free house of prostitution, a place where they could obtain oral sex at no charge. Their quick stop at a park restroom just off the highway jeopardized neither their work nor their commuting schedule.

      Sociologists Jay Corzine and Richard Kirby (1977) did a study of sex at truck stops. There they found something similar--heterosexual truckers having sex with homosexuals who search out partners at highway rest areas.

      As you read about Humphrey's research, you may have wondered how he knew that 38 percent of the participants in tearoom sex were married. Certainly they didn't tell Humphreys that--and counting wedding rings wouldn't be accurate. Humphreys wrote down these men's license plate numbers and traced their home addresses. A year later, he visited the men at home, in the guise of a researcher conducting a health survey. As I said in the research methods section in the text, this technique set off a storm of controversy--both within and outside of sociology.

Situational homosexual behavior Sociologists have also studied situational homosexual behavior. Although the participants prefer sex with someone of the opposite sex, due to a special situation they engage in homosexual sex. Prisons and same-sex boarding schools are two examples where this often occurs.

      Sociologist George Kirkham (1971) studied situational homosexual behavior at the state prison at Soledad, California. He found three types of participants. In the jargon of the prisoners, they were known as queens (homosexual men who prefer same-sex partners), wolves (heterosexual men who force other men to have sex with them), and punks (heterosexual men who are forced to have sex). Situational homosexual behavior usually disappears when the situation changes--such as when a man is discharged from prison and again has access to sex with women.

Causes of Homosexuality

This example helps us understand why some heterosexuals have sex with someone of their own sex-because of force or lack of access to someone of the opposite sex. But what do we know about the causes of homosexuality? That is, why do some people prefer to have sex with people of their own sex?

      Despite many theories and thousands of studies, we do not know the answer. Although it is possible that genetics in the form of DNA markers, or the organization of the brain, may underlie human sexual orientation, researchers have found no chemical, biological, or even psychological differences that distinguish homosexuals and heterosexuals (Hooker 1957, 1958; Masters and Johnson 1979; Paul et al., 1982; Hamer et al. 1993; LeVay 1993; Laumann et al. 1994). In addition, we would expect identical twins--who develop from a single fertilized egg and share 100 percent of their heredity--to always have the same sexual orientation. If sexual orientation is inherited, then if one twin is heterosexual (or homosexual) the other twin should have the same sexual orientation. In some pairs of identical twins, however, one twin may have a heterosexual orientation and the other a homosexual orientation (McConaghy and Blaszczynski 1980; Bailey and Pillard 1991; Satinover 1996).

      With such findings, most sociologists take the social constructionist view and consider homosexuality to be the result of socialization (the environment), not genetics. No consistent patterns of socialization of homosexuals have been identified, however. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals come from a variety of family backgrounds. Consequently, unlike some psychoanalysts, sociologists do not view the cause of homosexuality to be a particular type of family relations, such as a "weak," aloof father and a close, "dominant" mother (Bieber 1976; Pillard 1990; Mallet and Apostolidis 1997).

      As with other human behavior, sociologists do not rule out the possibility that genetics underlie homosexual and heterosexual orientations. If these genetic causes exist, however, they have yet to be demonstrated. Also, if they exist, the sexual orientation is likely due to an interplay between these genetic factors and the environment. At this point, however, no "gay gene" has been found.

Comparing Male and Female Homosexuals

Let's consider one more aspect of homosexuality--differences that researchers have found between male and female homosexuals. (The term for a female homosexual, lesbian, apparently first referred to the Greek island of Lesbos, home of the poet Sappho, who wrote poetry that celebrated the love of woman for woman.)

      Earlier, we saw that homosexuality is more common among males than females, a finding supported by all researchers who have reported on this matter. Let's see what other differences researchers have found. One of the most significant is that lesbians are more likely to seek emotional relationships, and to place greater value on mutual commitment and sexual fidelity (Faderman 1981; Blackwood 1985, 1996). As a result, they tend to have fewer sexual partners than male homosexuals, and, if living in a committed relationship, they are less likely to have sex outside that relationship (Blumstein and Schwartz 1990). Lesbians are also less likely to go to gay bars (Wolf 1979; Lowenstein 1980; Peplau and Amaro 1982).

      Denmark legalized same-sex marriages in 1989. The first study of homosexual marriages in Denmark shows that lesbians have a higher divorce rate (23 percent compared to 14 percent for male-male marriages). The suggested explanation is that women initiate most of the heterosexual divorces in Denmark (as they also do in the United States), so it is likely that lesbians are following the heterosexual pattern. "Women simply expect different things from marriage than men do," suggests one analyst, "and if they don't get them, they prefer to live alone" (Jones 1997). Frankly, no one yet knows the reason for this pattern. The one that has been suggested is no more profound than to say that women are pickier than men, which certainly sounds like gender stereotyping.

      As you see, the differences that have been identified between male and female homosexuals largely parallel differences between male and female heterosexuals. For both homosexuals and heterosexuals, symbolic interactionists would trace these differences to early socialization. Girls are more likely to learn to associate sex with emotional relationships, and, like their heterosexual counterparts, lesbians tend to conform to this basic expectation. Similarly, boys tend to learn to separate sex from affection, to validate their self-images by sexual conquests. Boys are also more likely to see sexual fidelity as a restriction on their independence (Prus and Irini 1988).

The Social Construction of a Homosexual Identity

By themselves, erotic desires--and sex with members of one's own sex--are not sufficient for people to label themselves homosexual. Many people who experience such desires and who have sex with others of their own sex identify themselves as heterosexual (Laumann et al. 1994; Murray 2000). What is the process, then, by which people come to identify themselves as homosexual?

      Researchers have developed several models to account for this process (Troiden 1989). One of the more useful was developed by sociologist Vivienne Cass (1979, 1984). Using symbolic interactionism and based on case studies, Cass found that identifying oneself as homosexual involves six stages:

1. Identity confusion Finding his or her feelings--or behavior--at odds with heterosexual expectations, the individual feels confused and upset. He or she begins to ask, "Who am I?" and replies, "My behavior (or feelings) could be called homosexual."
   
   
2. Identity comparison The individual begins to feel "different," as though he or she does not belong. He or she makes a tentative commitment to a homosexual identity by saying, "I could be a homosexual."
   
   
3. Identity tolerance The individual turns his or her self-image further away from a heterosexual identity and more toward a homosexual identity. He or she concludes, "I probably am a homosexual."
   
   
4. Identity acceptance The individual moves from tolerating a homosexual self-image to accepting a homosexual identity. After increasing contact with others who define themselves as homosexual, he or she concludes, "I am a homosexual."
   
   
5. Identity pride The individual thinks of homosexuality as good and heterosexuality as bad. (Heterosexuals, for example, represent oppressors.) He or she makes a strong commitment to a homosexual group, which generates a firm sense of group identity. The individual may become politically active and thinks, "I am a homosexual--and proud of it."
   
   
6. Identity synthesis The individual decides that the "them and us" view is false. He or she begins to feel much similarity between himself or herself and some heterosexuals--as well as much dissimilarity between himself and herself and some homosexuals. Although homosexuality remains essential to the individual's identity, it becomes merely one aspect of the self. At this point, the individual may say, "I am a homosexual--but I am also a lot of other things in life."
   
   

      In line with symbolic interactionism, Cass stresses that the six stages are not fixed. People don't go through them rigidly, marching straight from number one to number six. Rather, the stages are fluid, and not everyone moves through them in the same way. People may stop at any stage. Individuals who have begun to interpret their feelings and behavior in terms of homosexuality, for example, may question that interpretation. They may even move back toward a heterosexual identity. For example, people in the first stage--who are facing the possibility that their behavior could be called homosexual--may stop their same-sex behavior. Or they may continue it--but define their behavior (or their feelings) as situational, and, therefore, not part of their sexual orientation. If they are in the third stage, they may feel positive that they "probably" are homosexual and move eagerly to the fourth stage. Or, if they dislike this probability, they may move away from a homosexual identification.

      In metaphorical terms, once one boards the train to a homosexual identity, one can continue the journey, get off at the station marked "Identification Stops Here," or even get off at the station called "Return to Heterosexuality." Not everyone who begins this journey continues it to a final destination called "Homosexuality" (Bell et al 1981). No one, however, has data to tell us what percentage of people who begin this journey complete it.