4 ms·

Heterosexual College Students Who Hookup with Same-Sex Partners

38 points by okket 9y ago

dalbasal 9y ago
Imperfect classifications are nerd-bait, and that goes for political nerds (ideological-nerds, etc.) too. Every time something comes up about dogs & wolves, polar bears and browns or some other case where classification of a taxa is grey, HN gets baited. Species are supposed to be speciated, and not supposed to breed outside of the species. When they ignore these rules, the whole concept of species gets muddled, and we get fascinated and sometimes get annoyed, resolved to create a more precise classification system. Genes are also supposed to flow from ancestors to descendants, and we have the same reaction when genes just float around and end up somewhere. Anyway, heterosexual, bisexual, bisexual and such are fuzzy classifications. We've gone and built frameworks around them, moral frameworks and others. "Born this way" is an moral-political framework, for example. It was framed this way because it generally agrees with observed reality and because it slots into minority protection, a rights framework that is well established. An alternative framework could have been, "Homosexuality is OK because it's harmless," which works fine as a personal/moral framework, doesn't require classification of people but does not work as well as a political rights framework. What will happen to our Lady Gaga songs if our classification goes away goes away? Oh no. Anyway, the reason all these categories are imperfect is because they're descriptions of human behaviour, and human behaviour is complicated. So yes, most people have certain patterns of sexual behaviour, desire, identity or whatnot. Some people are chaotic. These patterns are affected by things, like the complicated and shifting societal "rules" about what is good, bad, shameful or otherwise. Now that a good portion of the political work has been done (socially sanctioning homosexuality), I think we can start to complicate the story. One bit of complexity is the difference between "sexual" behaviour types: dating, sex, relationships, cuddling in front of the telly, marriage, family.... Our current framework at it's least nuanced assumes sex is the linchpin to all these. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are gay for some of these behaviours and straight for others. I think they always have been. There are streams and rivers of pattern, but every drop of water does what it does. The rules (when they are adhered to at all) govern streams, not water.
- pelario 9y ago
  Relevant article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-mad...
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    Thanks. Fun read. I can't wait till this guy learns about "dag-nahash" :) A lot of bad philosophy is like this, a pointless discussion about what words mean pretending to be a discussion about something. Even "real" philosophers do this. Theology is full of it, greek philosophy too. Modern philosophers (say, marx for example) try to solve this by creating their own, precisely defined words and concepts but they still often end up in the same stupid place. I wonder if some level of fluency in a computer language helps with this.
- bhnmmhmd 9y ago
  This. I hope some day our societies are mature enough to understand most of the labelings are just useless, restricting ways of limiting our perception of the world and the realities. Personally, I've never liked categorizing people/things in definite groups. Even as for personality types, I find the MBTI test (16 personalities) too narrow and primitive. Yet, I find MBTI at least useful enough to give me a general idea as to what type of a person I'm dealing with. On the other hand, when it comes to the labelings and categorizations that you mentioned, I agree with you; I don't even find them useful to get a general idea about people.
nbav4 9y ago
Sorry but is this a joke paper? If you have sex with a guy, you’re obviously not heterosexual. Doesn’t matter what you call yourself.
- jzwinck 9y ago
  If I eat a piece of chicken, can I not also be a vegetarian?
  - nbav4 9y ago
    No, you can’t.
    - jasonkostempski 9y ago
      Ever?
      - ryanlol 9y ago
        Nope, you had your chance.
        jasonkostempski 9y ago
        Shit, I really wanted to be a non-smoker too.
      - UK-Al05 9y ago
        If you identify as vegetarian, then proceed to eat chicken. Then no you arent vegetarian. If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it. Then yes you are vegetarian. If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it, and then eat chicken after some point. Then you was a vegetarian but are no longer. I didn't think it was that difficult.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    If I have a total of $1 can I identify as a billionaire? Sure, I can say that I am, but I would be wrong and delusional.
bufferoverflow 9y ago
"Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior" are simply not heterosexual, by definition.
- dreta 9y ago
  I think the idea is that they identify as heterosexual, not that they are; that's what makes it interesting to researchers.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    Yeah, but if I identify as a queen of England, I'm simply delusional. I don't get what's so unusually interesting about it. Psychiatry has been dealing with delusions for hundreds of years.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      The difference between madness and experiment is the method and results. People do not have to be consistent. Three follow up study could try to determine how they identify themselves later and what kind of sex life these people have. The study is probably underpowered to detect any mental issue if any exists whatsoever.
    - Sylos 9y ago
      Whether you're the Queen of England is a factoid. It can be either right or wrong. Whether you're sexually attracted to men or women is entirely subjective and not mutually exclusive. You can have a preference, which is most likely what you identify as, but you won't find the other sex entirely sexually unattractive as a result of that.
- angry_octet 9y ago
  Did you even read the article?
- Sylos 9y ago
  The definition of heterosexual is "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex". You can have sex with someone without being sexually attracted to their sex in general (with them being the exception) or even without being sexually attracted to them at all. Maybe you just want company while jerking off.
nanis 9y ago
Just another deeply flawed, likely invalid "study". > We analyzed the Online College Social Life Survey dataset[1] Is there any way to guarantee that the sexual choices and attitudes are independent of the likelihood of responding to this survey? > dataset of over 24,000 undergraduate students Let's establish a large yet completely irrelevant sample size. > students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner (N = 383 men and 312 women). So, our actual universe is at most 2.9% of the original self-selected group of individuals who chose to respond to this survey. If the OCSLS is representative, then this means at most 2.9% of all undergraduate students at U.S. colleges hooked up with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone. > significant minority of these students (12% of men and 25% of women) who labelled their sexual orientation "heterosexual" So, now we are down to 46 men and 78 women for a total of 0.52% of the original "over 24,000 undergraduate students". Again, if the original OCSLS is representative, this means at most 0.52% of all undergraduate students who identify as heterosexual had a hookup with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone. > Latent class analysis revealed six distinctive "types" of heterosexually identified students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner. So, now we are able to split those 124 students into six separate groups. 75 of them engaged in "private sexual experimentation". There were 15 women who were 'conforming to a "performative bisexuality" script of women' and 34 of them had "strong religious practices and/or beliefs". So, 0.14% of undergraduate students in American colleges have strong religious beliefs that may preclude homosexuality and their last hookup was with a same-sex partner. > including 7% who exhibited "internalized heterosexism." That corresponds to about 9 people out of the 24,000 whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner who also exhibited internalized heterosexism. I am making no statement about the behavior of anyone other than the "researchers" who like to mention one-large number, and use percentages the rest of the way. This effectively creates the impression of more practically significant results than warranted, especially since the survey and responses on sensitive questions like this are subject to selection bias in the first place. [1]: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/england/ocsls/ http://www.nyu.edu/projects/england/ocsls/
- nanis 9y ago
  And I point these out, because I know how these kinds of "academics" sell these kinds of "studies"[1]. Here is what the title and subtitle of the Marie Claire story on this research says: > What’s a Label Anyway? > New research shows same-sex hookups are pretty common. In fact, the research used an existing data set which presumably is being mined to the Nth degree, and actually shows the opposite: Only 695 out of the 24,000 reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner. Only 124 of the 24,000 respondents reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner and identified as heterosexual. The story in Marie Claire does not contain any overt lies, but is designed to create a certain impression so that, among other things, the author can get invited on TV shows etc. [1]: https://twitter.com/AliciaMWalker1/status/986644676353691648 https://twitter.com/AliciaMWalker1/status/986644676353691648
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pelario 9y ago
Before commenting the instinctive "the title is a contradiction, this doesn't make sense", please read the damn abstract. It is short. If you are too lazy, here is the first line: "Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior fascinate both researchers and the media. " The whole point is about examining current categories, perhaps come up with more fine-grained categories, and finally, understanding human behaviour better.
okket 9y ago
Why is this link to a study flagged? Maybe some of those people who flagged it can comment on their reasons?
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I guess that a hint is probably in the abstract, "people are fascinated by this" (I am speculating) in a similar way to how they're fascinated by political stuff, that speaks directly to a currently important ideological point. That fascination, in HN-clickstream behaviour form... it looks like a "flag" to HN's flag classification system, human or machine, because the last time people were so fascinated a nasty flame ware emerged.
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  I don’t think the content belongs here. I come here to get away from this kind of headline and the related discussion. I don’t care about anyones sexuality, but the homosexuals of the world and other people whose sexuality defines their sense if self won’t stfu about it. I just scanned the comments here now to judge the reaction, to see if others were annoyed. Now I’ll probably never answer a question like this again and just flag the thing and go away like everybody else did because I got downvotes for sharing my opinion. Well downvoters, everybody who flagged this obviously agrees with me so suck on that.
seba_dos1 9y ago
Well, being attracted only to the opposite sex while having fun researching various possible ways of having pleasurable sex doesn't seem that strange to me. If you're open to experiments in bed and don't feel any stigma attached to same-sex intercourse that seems like a natural thing to try, regardless of whether you feel that you are hetero-, bi- or homosexual.
Sylos 9y ago
I feel like the basic premise of this study is far too complicated, because of traditionally far too static classifications. People have never and will never be strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. They have a preference, but they are never going to find the other sex entirely unattractive, even if some people would want to do your head in for claiming otherwise. Ultimately, a butt is a butt, a nipple is a nipple and a man boob isn't that different from a woman boob either. Certain characteristics like fitness, charisma, nurturance, intelligence, loyalty etc. can be viewed as sexy, too, and are entirely decoupled from sex. As such, when you identify as heterosexual, you have a preference for the opposite sex, which is high enough that you wouldn't consider both sexes generally equal like with bisexuality, but it does not mean that you cannot find anyone of the same sex sexy, too. They could have lots of characteristics that are typically ascribed to the other sex. Or they just happen to have the right combination of characteristics, apart from the sex, that you find really attractive. You would prefer for them to be the opposite sex, but you would also prefer for that opposite-sex-person that's into you to be a top model. At some point, you just stop holding your breath and bang what's available.
- oceanghost 9y ago
  > People have never and will never be strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. Horseshit. I am attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. Trying to redefine sexuality in terms convenient for you, is frankly offensive. I'm sure if I tried to define your sexuality, you'd have an issue with it.
  - Sylos 9y ago
    Well, I'm glad you always have your dowser ready to determine the sex of a butt, nipple or whatever else you might find sexy before you actually find it sexy. And trust me, I have no problem pissing someone off who sees any need to be offended by someone insinuating that they might find people of the same sex sexy to any degree at all. And no, I would not have a problem with you defining my sexuality. I'm frankly not sure what that's even supposed to mean. I find things sexy that I find sexy. There's nothing to define about it.

38 points by okket 9y ago

Imperfect classifications are nerd-bait, and that goes for political nerds (ideological-nerds, etc.) too. Every time something comes up about dogs & wolves, polar bears and browns or some other case where classification of a taxa is grey, HN gets baited. Species are supposed to be speciated, and not supposed to breed outside of the species. When they ignore these rules, the whole concept of species gets muddled, and we get fascinated and sometimes get annoyed, resolved to create a more precise classification system. Genes are also supposed to flow from ancestors to descendants, and we have the same reaction when genes just float around and end up somewhere. Anyway, heterosexual, bisexual, bisexual and such are fuzzy classifications. We've gone and built frameworks around them, moral frameworks and others. "Born this way" is an moral-political framework, for example. It was framed this way because it generally agrees with observed reality and because it slots into minority protection, a rights framework that is well established. An alternative framework could have been, "Homosexuality is OK because it's harmless," which works fine as a personal/moral framework, doesn't require classification of people but does not work as well as a political rights framework. What will happen to our Lady Gaga songs if our classification goes away goes away? Oh no. Anyway, the reason all these categories are imperfect is because they're descriptions of human behaviour, and human behaviour is complicated. So yes, most people have certain patterns of sexual behaviour, desire, identity or whatnot. Some people are chaotic. These patterns are affected by things, like the complicated and shifting societal "rules" about what is good, bad, shameful or otherwise. Now that a good portion of the political work has been done (socially sanctioning homosexuality), I think we can start to complicate the story. One bit of complexity is the difference between "sexual" behaviour types: dating, sex, relationships, cuddling in front of the telly, marriage, family.... Our current framework at it's least nuanced assumes sex is the linchpin to all these. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are gay for some of these behaviours and straight for others. I think they always have been. There are streams and rivers of pattern, but every drop of water does what it does. The rules (when they are adhered to at all) govern streams, not water.

pelario 9y ago
Relevant article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-mad...
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Thanks. Fun read. I can't wait till this guy learns about "dag-nahash" :) A lot of bad philosophy is like this, a pointless discussion about what words mean pretending to be a discussion about something. Even "real" philosophers do this. Theology is full of it, greek philosophy too. Modern philosophers (say, marx for example) try to solve this by creating their own, precisely defined words and concepts but they still often end up in the same stupid place. I wonder if some level of fluency in a computer language helps with this.
bhnmmhmd 9y ago
This. I hope some day our societies are mature enough to understand most of the labelings are just useless, restricting ways of limiting our perception of the world and the realities. Personally, I've never liked categorizing people/things in definite groups. Even as for personality types, I find the MBTI test (16 personalities) too narrow and primitive. Yet, I find MBTI at least useful enough to give me a general idea as to what type of a person I'm dealing with. On the other hand, when it comes to the labelings and categorizations that you mentioned, I agree with you; I don't even find them useful to get a general idea about people.

nbav4 9y ago

Sorry but is this a joke paper? If you have sex with a guy, you’re obviously not heterosexual. Doesn’t matter what you call yourself.

jzwinck 9y ago
If I eat a piece of chicken, can I not also be a vegetarian?
- nbav4 9y ago
  No, you can’t.
  - jasonkostempski 9y ago
    Ever?
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      Nope, you had your chance.
      - jasonkostempski 9y ago
        Shit, I really wanted to be a non-smoker too.
    - UK-Al05 9y ago
      If you identify as vegetarian, then proceed to eat chicken. Then no you arent vegetarian. If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it. Then yes you are vegetarian. If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it, and then eat chicken after some point. Then you was a vegetarian but are no longer. I didn't think it was that difficult.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  If I have a total of $1 can I identify as a billionaire? Sure, I can say that I am, but I would be wrong and delusional.

bufferoverflow 9y ago

"Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior" are simply not heterosexual, by definition.

dreta 9y ago
I think the idea is that they identify as heterosexual, not that they are; that's what makes it interesting to researchers.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Yeah, but if I identify as a queen of England, I'm simply delusional. I don't get what's so unusually interesting about it. Psychiatry has been dealing with delusions for hundreds of years.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    The difference between madness and experiment is the method and results. People do not have to be consistent. Three follow up study could try to determine how they identify themselves later and what kind of sex life these people have. The study is probably underpowered to detect any mental issue if any exists whatsoever.
  - Sylos 9y ago
    Whether you're the Queen of England is a factoid. It can be either right or wrong. Whether you're sexually attracted to men or women is entirely subjective and not mutually exclusive. You can have a preference, which is most likely what you identify as, but you won't find the other sex entirely sexually unattractive as a result of that.
angry_octet 9y ago
Did you even read the article?
Sylos 9y ago
The definition of heterosexual is "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex". You can have sex with someone without being sexually attracted to their sex in general (with them being the exception) or even without being sexually attracted to them at all. Maybe you just want company while jerking off.

nanis 9y ago

Just another deeply flawed, likely invalid "study". > We analyzed the Online College Social Life Survey dataset[1] Is there any way to guarantee that the sexual choices and attitudes are independent of the likelihood of responding to this survey? > dataset of over 24,000 undergraduate students Let's establish a large yet completely irrelevant sample size. > students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner (N = 383 men and 312 women). So, our actual universe is at most 2.9% of the original self-selected group of individuals who chose to respond to this survey. If the OCSLS is representative, then this means at most 2.9% of all undergraduate students at U.S. colleges hooked up with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone. > significant minority of these students (12% of men and 25% of women) who labelled their sexual orientation "heterosexual" So, now we are down to 46 men and 78 women for a total of 0.52% of the original "over 24,000 undergraduate students". Again, if the original OCSLS is representative, this means at most 0.52% of all undergraduate students who identify as heterosexual had a hookup with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone. > Latent class analysis revealed six distinctive "types" of heterosexually identified students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner. So, now we are able to split those 124 students into six separate groups. 75 of them engaged in "private sexual experimentation". There were 15 women who were 'conforming to a "performative bisexuality" script of women' and 34 of them had "strong religious practices and/or beliefs". So, 0.14% of undergraduate students in American colleges have strong religious beliefs that may preclude homosexuality and their last hookup was with a same-sex partner. > including 7% who exhibited "internalized heterosexism." That corresponds to about 9 people out of the 24,000 whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner who also exhibited internalized heterosexism. I am making no statement about the behavior of anyone other than the "researchers" who like to mention one-large number, and use percentages the rest of the way. This effectively creates the impression of more practically significant results than warranted, especially since the survey and responses on sensitive questions like this are subject to selection bias in the first place. [1]: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/england/ocsls/ http://www.nyu.edu/projects/england/ocsls/

nanis 9y ago
And I point these out, because I know how these kinds of "academics" sell these kinds of "studies"[1]. Here is what the title and subtitle of the Marie Claire story on this research says: > What’s a Label Anyway? > New research shows same-sex hookups are pretty common. In fact, the research used an existing data set which presumably is being mined to the Nth degree, and actually shows the opposite: Only 695 out of the 24,000 reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner. Only 124 of the 24,000 respondents reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner and identified as heterosexual. The story in Marie Claire does not contain any overt lies, but is designed to create a certain impression so that, among other things, the author can get invited on TV shows etc. [1]: https://twitter.com/AliciaMWalker1/status/986644676353691648 https://twitter.com/AliciaMWalker1/status/986644676353691648

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pelario 9y ago

Before commenting the instinctive "the title is a contradiction, this doesn't make sense", please read the damn abstract. It is short. If you are too lazy, here is the first line: "Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior fascinate both researchers and the media. " The whole point is about examining current categories, perhaps come up with more fine-grained categories, and finally, understanding human behaviour better.

okket 9y ago

Why is this link to a study flagged? Maybe some of those people who flagged it can comment on their reasons?

dalbasal 9y ago
I guess that a hint is probably in the abstract, "people are fascinated by this" (I am speculating) in a similar way to how they're fascinated by political stuff, that speaks directly to a currently important ideological point. That fascination, in HN-clickstream behaviour form... it looks like a "flag" to HN's flag classification system, human or machine, because the last time people were so fascinated a nasty flame ware emerged.
hungerstrike 9y ago
I don’t think the content belongs here. I come here to get away from this kind of headline and the related discussion. I don’t care about anyones sexuality, but the homosexuals of the world and other people whose sexuality defines their sense if self won’t stfu about it. I just scanned the comments here now to judge the reaction, to see if others were annoyed. Now I’ll probably never answer a question like this again and just flag the thing and go away like everybody else did because I got downvotes for sharing my opinion. Well downvoters, everybody who flagged this obviously agrees with me so suck on that.

seba_dos1 9y ago

Well, being attracted only to the opposite sex while having fun researching various possible ways of having pleasurable sex doesn't seem that strange to me. If you're open to experiments in bed and don't feel any stigma attached to same-sex intercourse that seems like a natural thing to try, regardless of whether you feel that you are hetero-, bi- or homosexual.

Sylos 9y ago

I feel like the basic premise of this study is far too complicated, because of traditionally far too static classifications. People have never and will never be strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. They have a preference, but they are never going to find the other sex entirely unattractive, even if some people would want to do your head in for claiming otherwise. Ultimately, a butt is a butt, a nipple is a nipple and a man boob isn't that different from a woman boob either. Certain characteristics like fitness, charisma, nurturance, intelligence, loyalty etc. can be viewed as sexy, too, and are entirely decoupled from sex. As such, when you identify as heterosexual, you have a preference for the opposite sex, which is high enough that you wouldn't consider both sexes generally equal like with bisexuality, but it does not mean that you cannot find anyone of the same sex sexy, too. They could have lots of characteristics that are typically ascribed to the other sex. Or they just happen to have the right combination of characteristics, apart from the sex, that you find really attractive. You would prefer for them to be the opposite sex, but you would also prefer for that opposite-sex-person that's into you to be a top model. At some point, you just stop holding your breath and bang what's available.

oceanghost 9y ago
> People have never and will never be strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. Horseshit. I am attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. Trying to redefine sexuality in terms convenient for you, is frankly offensive. I'm sure if I tried to define your sexuality, you'd have an issue with it.
- Sylos 9y ago
  Well, I'm glad you always have your dowser ready to determine the sex of a butt, nipple or whatever else you might find sexy before you actually find it sexy. And trust me, I have no problem pissing someone off who sees any need to be offended by someone insinuating that they might find people of the same sex sexy to any degree at all. And no, I would not have a problem with you defining my sexuality. I'm frankly not sure what that's even supposed to mean. I find things sexy that I find sexy. There's nothing to define about it.