Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Concept of Category-Specificity

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. Both of these terms are unsatisfactory. Chivers (2017) appropriately used the terms gynephilia and androphilia because they are more useful than the traditional terms heterosexuality and homosexuality—the former specifically refer to a target of attraction, regardless of one’s gender. Both bisexuality and ambiphilia assume that only gender orientation matters or only gender orientation can show lack of preference. Ambiphilia means “both” and “love” and does not specify the target of attraction. One can be attracted to both men and women, but one could also be attracted to both children and adults, or both dominance and submission. In principle, ambiphilia could be used in all of these situations. We need a new and better term.

  2. If we have learned anything from the past two Puzzle of Sexual Orientation conferences (Vasey, 2017; Vasey & Lalumière, 2012), it is that sexual orientation is a messy construct that is unlikely to be a good target of scientific inquiry.

  3. Note that my suggestion to use cue-specificity when describing degree of discrimination is subject to the same caveat. A pattern of response can be considered more or less cue-specific only relative to something else.

References

  • Chivers, M. L. (2017). The specificity of women’s sexual response and its relationship with sexual orientation: A review and ten hypotheses. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0897-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736–744. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal among men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 5–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ebsworth, M., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Viewing time as a measure of bisexual sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 161–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, J. S., & Chivers, M. L. (2015). Examining gender specificity of sexual response with concurrent thermography and plethysmography. Psychophysiology, 52, 1382–1395. doi:10.1111/psyp.12466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sawatsky, M. L., Dawson, S. J., & Lalumière, M. L. (2017). Genital lubrication: A cue-specific genital response? Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Seto, M. C. (2017). The puzzle of male chronophilias. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 3–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011a). Prepared for anything? An investigation of female genital arousal in response to rape cues. Psychological Science, 22, 159–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011b). Category-specificity and sexual concordance: The stability of sex differences in sexual arousal patterns. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasey, P. L. (2017). Introduction to the special section: The puzzle of sexual orientation: What is it and how does it work? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 59–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vasey, P. L., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). The puzzle of sexual orientation: What is it and how does it work? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 11–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Sam Dawson, Gail Hepburn, Megan Sawatsky, Skye Stephens, Kelly Suschinsky, and Paul Vasey for useful suggestions and comments on a draft of this commentary.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Martin L. Lalumière

Authors
  1. Martin L. Lalumière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin L. Lalumière.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lalumière, M.L. On the Concept of Category-Specificity. Arch Sex Behav 46, 1187–1190 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0965-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0965-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation