Sexual orientation typically describes people’s sexual attractions or desires based on their sex relative to that of a target. Despite its utility, it has been critiqued in part because it fails to account for non-biological gender-related factors, partnered sexualities unrelated to gender or sex, or potential divergences between love and lust. In this article, I propose Sexual Configurations Theory (SCT) as a testable, empirically grounded framework for understanding diverse partnered sexualities, separate from solitary sexualities. I focus on and provide models of two parameters of partnered sexuality—gender/sex and partner number. SCT also delineates individual gender/sex. I discuss a sexual diversity lens as a way to study the particularities and generalities of diverse sexualities without privileging either. I also discuss how sexual identities, orientations, and statuses that are typically seen as misaligned or aligned are more meaningfully conceptualized as branched or co-incident. I map out some existing identities using SCT and detail its applied implications for health and counseling work. I highlight its importance for sexuality in terms of measurement and social neuroendocrinology, and the ways it may be useful for self-knowledge and feminist and queer empowerment and alliance building. I also make a case that SCT changes existing understandings and conceptualizations of sexuality in constructive and generative ways informed by both biology and culture, and that it is a potential starting point for sexual diversity studies and research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Lived experience refers to stories and accounts of what it means to live as a specific person within a specific set of social contexts. Lived experience also conveys the notion that group members have valuable knowledge about their group and social location, and that this insider knowledge is an important resource for scholars and others (van Manen, 2004). Social location refers to the place a specific person occupies along multiple axes of identity, reflecting intersectional thinking (Anderson, 2012; Crenshaw, 1991).
I explain my reasoning for employing the term “sexual orientation,” despite its limitations, in the section ““Sexual Orientation” as a Term and Concept: A Claim for Retention/Reclamation”.
Freund (1974, p. 68) actually used the term “erotic preference,” which he defined as “…relative sexual arousal value of male and female body shape”.
Some scholars use androphilic/gynephilic or gynoerotic/androerotic, which mean love of (or attraction to) men and women, respectively (e.g., Freund, 1974; Storms, 1980; Vasey & VanderLaan, 2012). These terms are useful for describing people’s sexual interests regardless of their own gender/sex, but still rely on targets having a discrete binaristic gender/sex and thus do not fit the purposes of this article.
With the exception of some who are minoritized on the basis of gender/sex and/or sexuality or those who are specifically interested in engaging with these constructs (e.g., some feminists and gender/sex/sexuality scholars).
Money noted that sexual preference, implying voluntary choice, was a politically dangerous term.
That is, evolution is not the only or primary arbiter of meaning even as it is useful and relevant for this discussion.
Biological reductionism is the belief that social processes can be best understood by studying underlying biological substrates or systems and the more reducible the biology the more informative (e.g., genetics are uniformly more informative than hormones, hormones are always more informative than cognition, genital responses are universally more informative than self-report). Biological essentialism is the belief that groups are unitary and have an underlying biological essence (e.g., homosexual men are all homosexual in the same way, for the same reason, and thus have the same biology). Biological determinism is the belief that biology causes a specific behavior universally, sometimes with allowances for cultural “nudges” (e.g., sexual outcomes are really caused by biological factors that culture only masks, dampens, or amplifies).
What is the line between solitary and dyadic sexuality? There is little empirical research on this point but could be. For example, if one masturbates in the presence of another person with no contact, is that solitary or dyadic? If one is using someone else for sexual gratification and not actually engaging with that person’s subjectivities, is that somewhat solitary? Is phone or internet sex solitary because one is alone or dyadic because another person is involved? If a person masturbates while watching sexual media, is there a dyadic element to that? If the presence of partners impacts sexual arousal while watching visual sexual material (van Lankveld et al., 2014), is that dyadic or solitary? Finally, if someone is aroused by the thought of being arousing to others (e.g., Bogaert & Brotto, 2013) is that solitary or dyadic?
Is nongender/sexed another word for androgyny? Androgyny could actually be the opposite; it could be seen as strongly but ambivalently gendered/sexed rather than not at all gendered/sexed (Bem, 1974; Lorber, 1996). Androgyny might be better conceptualized as existing as a specific form of gender/sex challenge (perhaps at its midpoint).
I see this warp as a sort of space tunnel where one is instantly positioned at two locations that occupy the same space.
An identity organized in part around wanting and/or having multiple sex partners for reasons of sexual pleasure, usually used by women who take this identity as part of a reclamation project (i.e., using it positively in ways that challenge its oppressive uses) (Easton & Liszt, 1997).
I am not necessarily satisfied with using a scale that marks the absence/presence of allosexuality, as if 0 % was a lack of something, but I have not figured out another approach. So, in short, absence is not meant to imply lack.
I use the term trans to include people who are trans-identified, transgender, transsexual, and/or individuals who have experienced gender/sex transition, as well as any other groups for whom this identity is meaningful. It can be contrasted with “cis,” which is used to mean gender/sex assigned at birth that coincides with felt gender/sex.
I have not used the term queer in the actual models from Sexual Configuration Theory even though it obviously echoes much of what I mean to convey with challenge. One reason is that many see queer as representing a specific set of politics that people may not relate to for a variety of reasons (the politics might be seen as White, as Western, as radical, as not radical enough, etc.). In addition, it is often used synonymously with minority sexualities as an identity label and it seems problematic for someone to have to self-locate as queer who does not identify as queer. And, it seems problematic for someone to have to not self-locate as queer who does identify as queer. But the term is still useful as a frequently employed identity category/label (e.g., see Serano, 2013).
Bisexuality is often positioned as somehow more problematically reifying gender/sex binaries than other sexualities because it involves attraction to “both” genders/sexes (Rust, 2001). I find this mystifying given that heterosexual, gay, and lesbian identities are also understood to inhere attractions to one and not “the other” gender/sex in a way that could be interpreted as providing the same support for a gender binary. Perhaps this is because some people see bisexuality as attempting to transgress sexuality and gender norms but somehow not going far enough. This is similar to hurtful critiques of some trans individuals who identify as men or women rather than an identity outside gender/sex binaries (i.e., that they should identify as genderqueer, Serano, 2013). However, it is not clear why monosexual or cisgender individuals should get to dictate that trans and bi identities should leave binaries behind when cisgender, heterosexual, and lesbian/gay individuals don’t, or why doing so should be a precondition for progressive politics and/or worldviews that allow for nonbinaristic identities. Accordingly, a more generous (and accurate) positioning is that some people’s orientations inhere some form of a binary in a way that is not indicative of their worldview. See also Serano (2013) for useful extended discussion on these points.
It seems worth noting that someone who has strong interests in sexually coercing others or who does sexually coerce others might locate as highly alloerotic because eroticism does not necessarily denote positive, wanted, or consensual phenomena. The same activity may be erotic for one person and traumatic for another.
Individuals strongly interested in consensual sexual dominance and/or who do engage in it might also be represented here. Given that detailed consent is a major feature of dominance/submission kink-related sexualities, I do not at all mean to conflate these with sexual coercion (hence separate footnotes).
Not to minimize interest in penises.
Adkins-Regan, E. (2005). Hormones and animal social behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2006). Orientations: Toward a queer phenomenology. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 12, 543–574.
Anderson, E. (1989). Sex codes and family life among poor inner-city youths. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 501, 59–78.
Anderson, E. (Fall 2012 Edition). Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved March 14, 2014 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/feminism-epistemology.
Bancroft, J. (2000a). Individual differences in sexual risk taking: A biopsychosocial theoretical approach. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), The role of theory in sex research (pp. 177–212). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bancroft, J. (Ed.). (2000b). The role of theory in sex research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner, and this is my…partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 75–88.
Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748–772.
Beckstead, A. L. (2012). Can we change sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 121–134.
Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2008). Affective neuroscience of pleasure: Reward in humans and animals. Psychopharmacology, 199, 457–480.
Blanchard, R., & Collins, P. I. (1993). Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 570–575.
Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Cantor, J. M., Klassen, P. E., & Dickey, R. (2009). Absolute versus relative ascertainment of pedophilia in men. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 431–441.
Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., & Cantor, J. M. (2012). Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 13–29.
Bogaert, A. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 279–287.
Bogaert, A. F. (2006). Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10, 241–250.
Bogaert, A. F. (2012a). Asexuality and autochorissexualism (identity-less sexuality). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1513–1514.
Bogaert, A. F. (2012b). Understanding asexuality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littefield Publishers.
Bogaert, A. F., & Brotto, L. A. (2013). Object of desire self-consciousness theory. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 40, 1–16.
Boom, J. (2008). The philosophy of pansexuality. Sexologies, 17, S73.
Boswell, J. (1990). Sexual and ethical categories in premodern Europe. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.
Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The ‘fair deal’: Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6, 237–261.
Brotto, L. A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., & Erksine, Y. (2010). Asexuality: A mixed methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 599–618.
Brotto, L. A., & Yule, M. A. (2011). Physiological and subjective sexual arousal in self-identified asexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 699–712.
Bullough, V. (1990). The Kinsey scale in historical perspective. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Burke, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (under review). How sexual is sexual desire? Testosterone and a multifaceted measure of desire in women.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Cain, K. E., & Ketterson, E. D. (2012). Competitive females are successful females; phenotype, mechanism, and selection in a common songbird. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66, 241–252.
Califia, P. (1999). Gay men, lesbians, and sex: Doing it together. In L. Gross & J. D. Woods (Eds.), The Columbia reader on lesbians & gay men in media, society, & politics (pp. 92–96). New York: Columbia University Press.
Carrigan, M. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference and commonality within the asexual community. Sexualities, 14, 462–478.
Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.
Cass, V. C. (1990). The implications of homosexual identity formation for the Kinsey model and scale of sexual preference. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 239–266). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cerny, J. A., & Janssen, E. (2011). Patterns of sexual arousal in homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 687–697.
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.
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumiere, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 5–56.
Chivers, M. L., & Timmers, A. D. (2012). Effects of gender and relationship context in audio narratives on genital and subjective sexual response in heterosexual women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 185–197.
Coleman, E. (1987). Assessment of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 9–24.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.
Coyote, I. E., & Sharman, Z. (Eds.). (2011). Persistence: All ways butch and femme. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85.
Delphy, C. (1993). Rethinking sex and gender. Women’s Studies International Forum, 16, 1–9.
DeLuzio Chasin, C. J. (2011). Theoretical issues in the study of asexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 713–723.
Demisexual. (2013). Retrieved March 17, 2014 from http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Demisexual.
Dewitte, M. (2014). Gender differences in liking and wanting sex: Examining the role of motivational context and implicit versus explicit processing. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0419-7.
Diamond, L. M. (2003a). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364.
Diamond, L. M. (2003b). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.
Diamond, L. M. (2012). The desire disorder in research on sexual orientation in women: Contributions of dynamical systems theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 73–83.
Diamond, L. M. (2014). Gender and same-sex sexuality. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 629–652). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Diamond, L. M., & Butterworth, M. (2008). Questioning gender and sexual identity: Dynamic links over time. Sex Roles, 59, 365–376.
Diamond, L. M., & Dickenson, J. A. (2012). The neuroimaging of love and desire: Review and future directions. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9, 39–46.
Diamond, M. (2009). Clinical implications of the organizational and activational effects of hormones. Hormones and Behavior, 55, 621–632.
Dreger, A. D. (1998). Hermaphrodites and the medical invention of sex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dreger, A. D. (Ed.). (1999). Intersex in the age of ethics. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group.
Easton, D., & Liszt, C. A. (1997). The ethical slut: A guide to infinite sexual possibilities. San Francisco: Greenery Press.
Ebsworth, M., & Lalumiere, M. L. (2012). Viewing time as a measure of bisexual sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 161–172.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2005). The bare bones of sex: Part 1-sex and gender. Signs, 30, 1491–1527.
Fernandez-Duque, E., Valeggia, C. R., & Mendoza, S. P. (2009). The biology of paternal care in human and nonhuman primates. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, 115–130.
Fisher, H. E. (1992). Anatomy of love: The natural history of monogamy, adultery, and divorce. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Magley, V. J. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–28). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. London: Hogarth Press.
Freund, K. (1974). Male homosexuality: An analysis of the pattern. In J. A. Loraine (Ed.), Understanding homosexuality: Its biological and psychological bases (pp. 25–81). Lancaster: Springer Netherlands.
Freund, K., & Kuban, M. (1993). Toward a testable developmental model of pedophilia: The development of erotic age preference. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 315–324.
Fujimura, J. H. (2006). Sex genes: A critical sociomaterial approach to the politics and molecular genetics of sex determination. Signs, 32, 49–82.
Gagnon, J. (1990). Gender preference in erotic relations: The Kinsey Scale and sexual scripts. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 177–207). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gagnon, J. (2000). Theorizing risky sex. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), The role of theory in sex research (pp. 149–176). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Galupo, M. P., Davis, K. S., Grynkiewiez, A. L., & Mitchell, R. C. (2014a). Conceptualization of sexual orientation identity among sexual minorities: Patterns across sexual and gender identity. Journal of Bisexuality, 14, 433–456.
Galupo, M. P., Mitchell, R. C., Grynkiewicz, A. L., & Davis, K. S. (2014b). Sexual minority reflections on the Kinsey Scale and the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Bisexuality, 14, 404–432.
Gartrell, N. K., Bos, H. M. W., & Goldberg, N. G. (2012). New trends in same-sex sexual contact for American adolescents [Letter to the Editor]? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 5–7.
Gavey, N., & Senn, C. Y. (2014). Sexuality and sexual violence. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 339–382). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., & Northcutt, M. J. (2009). Adolescent identities and sexual behavior: An examination of Anderson’s player hypothesis. Social Forces, 87, 1813–1844.
Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2011). Sexy thoughts: Effects of sexual cognitions on testosterone, cortisol, and arousal in women. Hormones and Behavior, 59, 754–764.
Gray, P. B., & Campbell, B. C. (2009). Human male testosterone, pair-bonding, and fatherhood. In P. B. Gray & P. T. Ellison (Eds.), Endocrinology of social relationships (pp. 270–293). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gray, P. B., Yang, C. F. J., & Pope, H. G. (2006). Fathers have lower salivary testosterone levels than unmarried men and married non-fathers in Beijing, China. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 333–339.
gray-a/grey-a. (2013). Retrieved March 17, 2014 from http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gray-A_/_Grey-A.
Haig, D. (2004). The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 87–96.
Haldeman, D. C. (2002). Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 260–264.
Halley, J. E. (1994). Sexual orientation and the politics of biology: A critique of the argument from immutability. Stanford Law Review, 46, 503–568.
Haraway, D. (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), International handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117–158). Dordrecht: Springer.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harris, G. T., Lalumiere, M. L., Seto, M. C., Rice, M. E., & Chaplin, T. C. (2012). Explaining the erectile responses of rapists to rape stories: The contributions of sexual activity, non-consent, and violence with injury. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 221–229.
Herdt, G. (1990). Developmental discontinuities and sexual orientation across cultures. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 208–236). New York: Oxford University Press.
Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375.
Hinderliter, A. C. (2009). Methodological issues for studying asexuality [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 619–621.
Hines, S. (2006). What’s the difference? Bringing particularity to queer studies of transgender. Journal of Gender Studies, 15, 49–66.
Hird, M. J. (2000). Gender’s nature: Intersexuality, transsexualism and the ‘sex’/‘gender’ binary. Feminist Theory, 1, 347–364.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (1998). The male in the head: Young people, heterosexuality, and power. London: The Tufnell Press.
Hughes, I. A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S. F., & Lee, P. A. (2006). Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 2, 148–162.
Janssen, E., McBride, K. R., Yarber, W., Hill, B. J., & Butler, S. M. (2008). Factors that influence sexual arousal in men: A focus group study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 252–265.
Joel, D. (2012). Genetic-gonadal-genitals sex (3G-sex) and the misconception of brain and gender, or, why 3G-males and 3G-females have intersex brain and intersex gender. Biology of Sex Differences, 3, 1–6. doi:10.1186/2042-6410-3-27.
Joel, D., Tarrasch, R., Berman, Z., Mukamel, M., & Ziv, E. (2014). Queering gender: Studying gender identity in ‘normative’ individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 5, 291–321.
Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517–523.
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Sexuality and gender: The interplay. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 29–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kessler, S. J. (1998). Lessons from the intersexed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kimmel, M. S. (Ed.). (1987). Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.
Klein, F. (1990). The need to view sexual orientation as a multivariable dynamic process: A theoretical perspective. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 277–282). New York: Oxford University Press.
Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35–49.
Kleinplatz, P. J., & Diamond, L. M. (2014). Sexual diversity. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 245–267). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9, 565–583.
Korchmaros, J. D., Powell, C., & Stevens, S. (2013). Chasing sexual orientation: A comparison of commonly used single-indicator measures of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 596–614.
Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., … White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370.
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.
Krishnamurti, T., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). The partner-specific sexual liking and sexual wanting scale: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 467–476.
Kukkonen, T. M., Binik, Y. M., Amsel, R., & Carrier, S. (2007). Thermography as a physiological measure of sexual arousal in both men and women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4, 93–105.
Laan, E., & Janssen, E. (2007). How do men and women feel? Determinants of subjective experience of sexual arousal. In E. Janssen (Ed.), The psychophysiology of sex (pp. 278–290). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lerner, R. M. (1992). Final solutions: Biology, prejudice, and genocide. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Hall, R. J., Smalley, K. B., & Williams, C. M. (2012). Measurement of nontraditional sexuality in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 283–295.
Lippa, R. A. (2012). Effects of sex and sexual orientation on self-reported attraction and viewing times to images of men and women: Testing for category specificity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 149–160.
Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Longino, H. E. (2002). Subjects, power, and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In K. B. Wray (Ed.), Knowledge and inquiry: Readings and epistemology (pp. 385–404). Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
Longino, H. E. (2013). Studying human behavior: How scientists investigate aggression and sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lorber, J. (1996). Beyond the binaries: Depolarizing the categories of sex, sexuality, and gender. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 143–159.
Lykins, A. D., Cantor, J. M., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Dickey, R., Klassen, P. E., & Blanchard, R. (2010). Sexual arousal to female children in gynephilic men. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 279–289.
Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2002). Do all orgasms feel alike? Evaluating a two-dimensional model of the orgasm experience across gender and sexual context. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 104–113.
Markowitz, S. (2001). Pelvic politics: Sexual dimorphism and racial difference. Signs, 26, 389–414.
Maybach, K. L., & Gold, S. R. (1994). Hyperfemininity and attraction to macho and non-macho men. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 91–98.
McWhirter, D. P., Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (Eds.). (1990). Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meana, M. (2010). Elucidating women’s (hetero)sexual desire: Definitional challenges and content expansion. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 104–122.
Mehrabian, A., & Blum, J. S. (1997). Physical appearance, attractiveness, and the mediating role of emotions. Current Psychology, 16, 20–42.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 361–368.
Money, J. (1986). Lovemaps: Clinical concepts of sexual/erotic health and pathology, paraphilia, and gender transposition of childhood, adolescence, and maturity. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Money, J. (1990). Agenda and credenda of the Kinsey Scale. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 41–60). New York: Oxford University Press.
Moore, M. R. (2011). Two sides of the same coin: Revising analyses of lesbian sexuality and family formation through the study of black women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 15, 58–68.
Moore, M. R. (2012). Intersectionality and the study of black, sexual minority women. Gender & Society, 26, 33–39.
Moser, C. (2009). Autogynephilia in women. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 539–547.
Moskowitz, D. A., Turrubiates, J., Lozano, H., & Hajek, C. (2013). Physical, behavioral, and psychological traits of gay men identifying as bears. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 775–784.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Peterson, Z. D. (2011). Distinguishing between sex and gender: History, current conceptualizations, and implications. Sex Roles, 64, 791–803.
Nichols, M. (1990). Lesbian relationships: Implications for the study of sexuality and gender. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 350–364). New York: Oxford University Press.
Noël, M. J. (2006). Progressive polyamory: Considering issues of diversity. Sexualities, 9, 602–620.
Oliveira, R. F. (2009). Social behavior in context: Hormonal modulation of behavioral plasticity and social competence. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 49, 423–440.
Parker, R. G. (2000). Sexuality and culture. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), The role of theory in sex research (pp. 307–321). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Penke, L. (2013). Revised sociosexual orientation inventory. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 622–625). New York: Routledge.
Pillard, R. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (1987). The periodic table model of the gender transpositions: Part I. A theory based on masculinization and defeminization of the brain. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 425–454.
Pinkerton, S. D., Cecil, H., Bogart, L. M., & Abramson, P. R. (2003). The pleasures of sex: An empirical investigation. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 341–353.
Player. (2013). Retrieved March 17, 2014 from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=player.
Prause, N., & Graham, C. A. (2007). Asexuality: Classification and characterization. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 341–356.
Przybylo, E. (2012). Producing facts: Empirical asexuality and the scientific study of sex. Feminism and Psychology, 23, 224–242.
Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make them up’: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9, 584–601.
Rodgers, J. L. (2000). Social contagion and adolescent sexual behavior: Theoretical and policy implications. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), The role of theory in sex research (pp. 258–278). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Rodriguez Rust, P. (2000). Bisexuality: A contemporary paradox for women. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 205–221.
Rosario, M., & Schrimshaw, E. W. (2014). Theories and etiologies of sexual orientation. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 555–596). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rosenthal, A. M., Sylva, D., Safron, A., & Bailey, J. M. (2012). The male bisexuality debate revisited: Some bisexual men have bisexual arousal patterns. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 135–147.
Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex. In R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Rubin, G. (1999). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In P. Aggleton & R. Parker (Eds.), Culture, society and sexuality: A reader (2nd ed., pp. 143–178). London: UCL Press.
Rust, P. C. (2001). Too many and not enough: The meanings of bisexual identities. Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 33–68.
Rust, P. C. (2003). Monogamy and polyamory: Relationship issues for bisexuals. In D. C. Kimmel (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences (2nd ed., pp. 475–496). New York: Columbia University Press.
Sanders, S. A., Reinisch, J. M., & McWhirter, D. P. (1990). An overview. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. xix–xxvii). New York: Oxford University Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C., Joyner, K., & Rieger, G. (2012). Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 103–110.
Scherrer, K. S. (2008). Coming to an asexual identity: Negotiating identity, negotiating desire. Sexualities, 11, 621–641.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Serano, J. M. (2010). The case against autogynephilia. International Journal of Transgenderism, 12, 176–187.
Serano, J. M. (2013). Excluded: Making feminist and queer movements more inclusive. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
Seto, M. C. (2012). Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 231–236.
Seto, M. C., Lalumiere, M. L., Harris, G. T., & Chivers, M. L. (2012). The sexual responses of sexual sadists. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 1–15.
Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 251–283.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.
Snowdon, C. T. (2001). Sexe, attachment, et monogamie chez les primates. Primatologie, 3, 387–420.
Spelman, E. V. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Stokes, J. P., Miller, R. L., & Mundhenk, R. (1998). Toward an understanding of behaviourally bisexual men: The influence of context and culture. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 101–113.
Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 783–792.
Stryker, S., & Whittle, S. (Eds.). (2006). The transgender studies reader. New York: Routledge.
Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumiere, M. L. (2012). Is sexual concordance related to awareness of physiological states? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 199–208.
Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumiere, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 559–573.
Tate, C. C. (2011). The “problem of number” revisited: The relative contributions of psychosocial, experiential, and evolutionary factors to the desired number of sexual partners. Sex Roles, 64, 644–657.
Terry, L. L., Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumiere, M. L., & Vasey, P. L. (2012). Feederism: An exaggeration of a normative mate selection preference? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 249–260.
Terry, L. L., & Vasey, P. L. (2011). Feederism in a woman. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 639–645.
The Polyamory Society. (2014). Polyamory language page. Retrieved March 14, 2014 from http://www.polyamorysociety.org/language.html.
Tiefer, L. (1996). The medicalization of sexuality: Conceptual, normative, and professional issues. Annual Review of Sex Research, 7, 252–282.
Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. M. (2014). Sexuality theory: A review, a revision, and a recommendation. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 3–27). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tweedy, A. E. (2011). Polyamory as a sexual orientation. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 79, 1461–1515.
Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094.
van Anders, S. M. (2009). Androgens and diversity in adult human partnering. In P. B. Gray & P. T. Ellison (Eds.), Endocrinology of social relationships (pp. 340–363). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
van Anders, S. M. (2012a). From one bioscientist to another: Guidelines for researching and writing about bisexuality for the lab and biosciences. Journal of Bisexuality, 12, 393–403.
van Anders, S. M. (2012b). Testosterone and sexual desire in healthy women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1471–1484.
van Anders, S. M. (2013). Beyond masculinity: Testosterone, gender/sex, and human social behavior in a comparative context. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 34, 198–210.
van Anders, S. M., & Dunn, E. J. (2009). Are gonadal steroids linked with orgasm perceptions and sexual assertiveness in women and men?. Hormones and Behavior, 56, 206–213.
van Anders, S. M., Edelstein, R. S., Wade, R. W., & Samples-Steele, C. R. (2013). Descriptive experiences and sexual vs. nurturant aspects of cuddling between adult romantic partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 553–560.
van Anders, S. M., & Goldey, K. L. (2010). Testosterone and partnering are linked via relationship status for women and ‘relationship orientation’ for men. Hormones and Behavior, 58, 820–826.
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 1265–1275.
van Anders, S. M., Hamilton, L. D., Schmidt, N., & Watson, N. V. (2007a). Associations between testosterone secretion and sexual activity in women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 477–482.
van Anders, S. M., Hamilton, L. D., & Watson, N. V. (2007b). Multiple partners are associated with higher testosterone in North American men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 454–459.
van Anders, S. M., Tolman, R. M., & Volling, B. L. (2012). Baby cries and nurturance affect testosterone in men. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 31–36.
van Anders, S. M., & Watson, N. V. (2006). Social neuroendocrinology: Effects of social contexts and behaviors on sex steroids in humans. Human Nature, 17, 212–237.
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., & Enzlin, P. (2014). Stories about asexuality: A qualitative study on asexual women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2014.889053.
van Lankveld, J., Hubben, D., Dewitte, M., Dingemans, M. E., den Butter, C., & Grauvogl, A. (2014). The partner’s presence in the sex research lab differentially affects sexual arousal in women and men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 697–708.
van Manen, M. (2004). Lived experience. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 580–581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2009). Doing gender in sex and sex research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 883–898.
Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2012). Sexual orientation in men and avuncularity in Japan: Implications for the kin selection hypothesis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 209–215.
Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 85–101.
Wallen, K. (2001). Sex and context: Hormones and primate sexual motivation. Hormones and Behavior, 40, 339–357.
Weinrich, J. D. (1988). The periodic table model of the gender transpositions: Part II. Limerent and lusty sexual attractions and the nature of bisexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 113–129.
Weiss, M. (2011). Techniques of pleasure: BDSM and the circuits of sexuality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Whalen, R. E., Geary, D. C., & Johnson, F. (1990). Models of sexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 61–70). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 496–502.
Wiegman, R. (1999). Whiteness studies and the paradox of particularity. Boundary, 2, 115–150.
Wilson, R. J. (1999). Emotional congruence in sexual offenders against children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 33–47.
Wingfield, J. C., Hegner, R. E., Dufty, A. M., Jr, & Ball, G. F. (1990). The “challenge hypothesis”: Theoretical implications for patterns of testosterone secretion, mating systems, and breeding strategies. American Naturalist, 136, 829–846.
Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1048–1054.
Young, L. J., Wang, Z., & Insel, T. R. (1998). Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy. Trends in Neurosciences, 21, 71–75.
Zheng, L., Hart, T. A., & Zheng, Y. (2012). The relationship between intercourse preference positions and personality traits among gay men in China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 683–689.
Zheng, L., Hart, T. A., & Zheng, Y. (2013). Attraction to male facial masculinity in gay men in China: Relationship to intercourse preference positions and sociosexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1223–1232.
The author is also affiliated with the Program in Neuroscience, the Reproductive Sciences Program, the Science, Technology, and Society Program, and the Biosocial Methods Collaborative at the University of Michigan. I count myself fortunate to be part of a vibrant community of sexuality scholars and thinkers. This article grew in part out of the 2012 International Academy of Sex Research conference in Estoril, Portugal, with the juxtaposition of two panels that brought ideas from very different scholarships into the same thought-space for me: the asexuality panel (with Lori Brotto, Paul Enzlin, Nicole Prause, and Ela Przybylo) and the polyamory panel (with Daniel Cardoso, Alex Iantaffi, and myself). I am thankful to Marc Breedlove for inviting me to speak in the 2012 “Whom You Love” series at Michigan State University where I discussed some very early ideas that grew, in part, into this article. I am deeply grateful to Lisa Diamond, who enthusiastically supported this work and provided valuable feedback on many drafts. I am truly indebted to Janine Farrell and Meredith Chivers for extended discussion, comments on drafts, and transformative insights. I am very thankful to Daniel Cardoso, Terri Conley, Devon Grayson, and Eli Sheff for their deep engagement with early drafts, as well as Zena Sharman who also spent considerable time discussing several points with me. A number of students in my lab, from 2012 to 2014, were generous with their time and thoughts in discussion and commenting on early drafts, including most prominently Katherine Goldey and Gayatri Jainagaraj. My partner, Greg van Anders, was critical to this article in several ways: sharing more heavily in co-parenting at times so I could finish yet another draft, reading early drafts and discussing ideas throughout, teaching me a new graphics program and being on-call for advice, listening to me map out ideas and asking crucial questions, and encouraging me and this article at every chance. I am also thankful to Meg John Barker, Aaron Devor, Sara McClelland, and Abigail Stewart for reading early drafts, and to Stephanie Preston and Stacey Ritz for helpful discussion. Christopher Burke of http://www.burkevisuals.com asked key questions that helped me think through visualizations for some figures in new ways and provided an early concept diagram that was critical and foundational to the final versions I developed of these figures. And, I am grateful to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their very detailed, generous, thoughtful, and transformative feedback.
About this article
Cite this article
van Anders, S.M. Beyond Sexual Orientation: Integrating Gender/Sex and Diverse Sexualities via Sexual Configurations Theory. Arch Sex Behav 44, 1177–1213 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8
- Sexual orientation