
Heterosexual College Students Who Hookup with Same-Sex Partners - okket
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29671130?dopt=Abstract
======
dalbasal
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
Relevant article: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-
mad...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-
not-man-for-the-categories/)

~~~
dalbasal
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.

------
pelario
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.

------
Sylos
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
> 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
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.

~~~
oceanghost
You're a hot mess :)

------
seba_dos1
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.

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

~~~
dalbasal
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.

------
nanis
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
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)

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

~~~
Sylos
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.

~~~
bufferoverflow
There are multiple definitions of heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Unfortunately the article didn't specify which one.

[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/heterosexuality](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/heterosexuality)

[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homosexuality](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homosexuality)

~~~
Sylos
The article's use of "heterosexual" describes a person. Those two definitions
that you listed describe a feeling or behaviour.

And while there are people who will call others "gay" as soon as they do
anything that could be interpreted as vaguely sexual with someone of the same
sex, that's hardly a scientific definition. And no one will identify
themselves as this kind of "gay".

~~~
bufferoverflow
So you're saying there's no connection between "heterosexual" and
"heterosexuality"?

~~~
Sylos
That is not at all what I am saying. I cannot explain this to you better than
I already have. Your diverging definition of heterosexuality describes a
behaviour or a feeling. It does not apply to people being heterosexual. This
is how definitions work. It describes a thing that this word can mean. If what
you want it to mean does not fit into the definition, then that's not what it
means.

