Understanding Women's Sexualities and Sexual Orientations: An Introduction

Letitia Anne Peplau [*]

Researchers and theorists who attempt to generalize about sexuality and sexual orientation in both men and women simultaneously often take male experiences as the norm and ignore unique aspects of women's lives. The purpose of this issue is to focus attention on scientific research and theory about aspects of women's sexualities, with special emphasis on sexual orientation. A new paradigm is presented that recognizes the great diversity of women's erotic experiences and the many sociocultural factors that shape women's sexuality and sexual orientation across the lifespan. This introductory article highlights major themes and provides a brief summary of the articles in the issue. Four central topics are discussed: (1) the complex nature of women's sexualities and sexual orientations; (2) the importance of historical, social, and cultural contexts for adequately understanding women's sexualities; (3) the development of sexual orientation in women; and (4) implications for research and policy.

In recent years, Americans have focused increased attention on women's sexuality and sexual orientation. Although many once considered heterosexuality as the "natural" state of affairs, there is now controversy about the origins of sexual orientation and its implications for tolerance toward sexual minorities. Discussions of civil rights for lesbians, gay men, and other sexual minorities are common: Such issues as gays in the military and insurance benefits for domestic partners are frequently debated. Public discussions have also questioned the very meaning of such presumably basic concepts as "sex." In 1998, when U.S. President Bill Clinton told the American public that he had never had sexual relations with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, many people assumed that their relationship had been platonic. Later Clinton explained that they had engaged in oral sex but he insisted that this did not constitute "sexual relations." A recent study found that 59% of college students, like Bill Clinton, would not say they "had sex" with someone if their most intimate behavior was oral sex (Sanders & Reinisch, 1999).

Every major social institution in America, from the military to organized religion, has been challenged to rethink long-standing beliefs and policies concerning sexual behavior and sexual orientation. Heated debates about sex education in the schools offer one example. Should elementary school children learn about nontraditional families with two mommies? Should heterosexual teens be given detailed education about sexuality and contraception, or is a minimalist curriculum advocating abstinence preferable? Should the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual teens be incorporated into school programs or simply ignored? All Americans are touched in some way by the growing public discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation.

The increased visibility of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals has had mixed social consequences. One result has been to expand public awareness about a wide range of personal lifestyles. Simplistic stereotypes are challenged as people watch more realistic portrayals of lesbian and gay characters on television shows and in movies and as more sexual-minority individuals are open with friends, coworkers, and neighbors about their lives. This may lead some people to question their unexamined assumptions about heterosexuality and its institutionalized form in marriage. There are signs of increasing tolerance toward homosexuals, as shown, for instance, in changing attitudes about employment discrimination. Over the past 20 years, the percentage of Americans endorsing equal employment rights for homosexuals has increased from 56% in 1977 to 71% in 1989 and 84% in 1998 (Berke, 1998, p. 3).

At the same time, the growing public presence of homosexuals and other sexual minorities has challenged the undisputed dominance of heterosexuality and led to a powerful backlash. One example is provided by the case brought before the Hawaii state supreme court to legalize same-sex marriage (Goldenberg, 1996). The court ruled that the state had failed to show any compelling reason for the existing ban on gay and lesbian unions. In response to this victory for gay and lesbian civil rights, a campaign was mounted in Hawaii and in other states to enact laws preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages. More than 30 states have now enacted such laws. Further, in 1996 the U. S. House of Representatives passed the "Defense of Marriage Act," which defined marriage for federal programs as a legal union between a man and a woman. This act also allowed states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Moreover, voters in Hawaii recently changed the state constitution to define marriag e as a legal union between a man and a woman, thus ensuring that same-sex marriages could not be performed in Hawaii.

The greater visibility of gay people has also increased public expressions of animosity. As one example, a coalition of religious groups recently placed full-page ads in major newspapers condemning homosexuality. Republican Congressional Majority Leader Trent Lott publicly likened homosexuality to kleptomania and alcoholism (Berke, 1998, p. 3). Around the country, groups are working to amend state constitutions to forbid laws protecting the civil rights of gay people. Hate crimes, such as the vicious murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard, continue. Events such as these highlight the persistence of hostility and discrimination against sexual minorities.