« Failing Upward | Main | Conservatives vs. Africa »

Is Larry Craig Heterosexual?

05 Sep 2007 04:45 pm

Probably not. But last week, Christopher Hitchens played devil's advocate:

But there's actually a chance—a 38 percent chance, to be more precise—that the senator can cop a plea on the charge of hypocrisy. In his study of men who frequent public restrooms in search of sex, Laud Humphreys discovered that 54 percent were married and living with their wives, 38 percent did not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual, and only 14 percent identified themselves as openly gay.

Here's Andrew, on the same study:

I'm not sure I buy that. I'll bet many of them are closeted, conflicted or gay-and-married-to-a-woman. They say they're hetero, sure. But the Onion had the best riposte to that.

I don't buy the numbers Hitchens cites, either - not least because they're from 1970, a much more closeted time than ours. But on the other hand, there is clearly some percentage of heterosexual men who engage in gay encounters outside of the all-male environments, like prep school and prison, where opportunistic homosexuality is most common. Yes, there's evidence to support the proposition that male bisexuality doesn't exist as a distinct category of sexual orientation (though I retain some skepticism about this finding), but even if there's a gay-straight binary, in some sense, on the level of biochemical arousal, there's also clearly a certain number of people whose behavior places them in the 2-4 range on the Kinsey scale, and not all of them are gay men who are lying to themselves. Consider the findings of the same recent study that seeks to debunk the idea of bisexuality as a distinct sexual category:

In the experiment ... the researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range.

Seated alone in a laboratory room, the men then watched a series of erotic movies, some involving only women, others involving only men.

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men.

But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

Now obviously it's impossible to know what the overlap is between the population of self-described "bisexuals" in this survey and the population of men who troll for sex in public restrooms. But it's suggestive, at least, that there might be a one-in-four chance that when Larry Craig says he's not and never has been gay, he's telling the truth.

Comments (40)

This would be a lot more plausible if not for his long, fairly well-documented history of having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms.

Larry Craig is not a self-identified bisexual.

jenny

To further Jenny's point, not only that, but people like Craig--deeply conservative on issues of sexuality--are probably the least likely to self-identify as bisexual.

I suppose it's possible that Craig had to close his eyes and think about his wife in order to maintain his bathroom erections, but I don't think it's very likely.

No, I understand that. But the point is that there seems to be some proportion, however small, of the male heterosexual population that feels an itch to experiment with homosexual behavior. If they're twentysomethings in urban areas, these guys might be open about it, and thus inclined call themselves bisexuals. But if they're old married white guys from Idaho, they'd be more likely to want to keep this itch a secret, and probably would never think of using a term like "bisexual." So the fact that Craig would never self-identify as bisexual doesn't mean that he couldn't fall into this category, rather than the (much larger, and thus more-plausible) category of closeted gay men.

Fair enough Ross, but I bet that the number of bicurious straight guys quickly decreases the farther you get from cities and twentysomethings. That study was probably done with college students.

jenny

Ross,
What about environment? If a 20th something heterosexual urban male has an 'itch' to experiment with homosexual sex, he doesn't really risk a whole lot--his friends are less likely to judge and shun him. This means that the itch is fairly easy to scratch, so hey, why not. But, if the man is someone in Craig's position, that itch has got to be on par with a uncontrollable urge for him to risk as much as he has lost to satisfy that desire, no?

From the article:

"In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men."

jenny

My last sentence is difficult to parse.


Given that a middle aged conservative rural male is engaging in discrete homosexual activities--while self-identifiying as heterosexual--is he more or less likely to be the anomaly you describe of a "male heterosexual population that feels an itch to experiment with homosexual behavior" than a younger, urban, and more cosmopolitan self-identifying heterosexual male that experiments with homosexual sex?

Mr. Douthat,

If you have given an accurate precis of the study and its methods, it was a cross-sectional assessment which took no notice of temporal variation in arousal and behavior. Persons who are asked to categorize themselves have histories. They do not merely live in the present moment.

If "jenny's" report of the means by which the participants were recruited is correct, the sample is self-selected and you likely cannot validly generalize from the reported proportions.

Did the study entertain the possibility that (among this self-identified subset) that the capacity to be aroused by visual stimulation may be predominantly in one direction, but the capacity to be aroused by stimulation of the other senses may not; or that the artificial context of the experiment may have been more suppressive of one type of arousal than another?

The fact that homosexual activity was very widespread in some societies including ancient Greece and the medieval Muslim world, might seem to indicate that orientations are perhaps more malleable than we often assume.

Most gay people may indeed be fixed in their orientation at birth. however there does seem to be indication that in some societies, a large fraction of men (presumably innately 'straight') did choose to have intercourse with men.

and of course, prisons/sail ships/prep schools may be artificial environment, but they do say something about sexual attraction being partly malleable.

I think it's unfortunate that we recognize that a homosexual can have sex with members of the opposite sex many times, and even raise a family, and still be a homosexual; but if a heterosexual has even one sexual encounter with a member of the same sex, why, he must secretly be gay.

Hector writes: "and of course, prisons/sail ships/prep schools may be artificial environment, but they do say something about sexual attraction being partly malleable."

I think you may be confusing sexual desire with "attraction," which is an entirely different matter.

The old joke is that some guys would "f**k a snake if someone would hold the head." Prisons, sailing ships, seminaries and such may lack objects of attraction for "straight" men but nothing about them eliminates desire.

Re: homosexual activity was very widespread in some societies including ancient Greece and the medieval Muslim world

In both those cultures women were fairly sequestered and the services of prostitutes was expensive so what you have (for unmarried young men) is something similar to a prison with its lack of sex partners of the opposite gender.

The “arousal test” seems a bit simplistic and arbitrary. When I drive by the local strip joint I’m not turned on by the sign that says “totally nude nudes”. I’m turned on by the idea of sex it relates to.

The same could easily be said of the participants in a study like this.

If I would have sex with myself, does that make me gay?

I think it's unfortunate that we recognize that a homosexual can have sex with members of the opposite sex many times, and even raise a family, and still be a homosexual; but if a heterosexual has even one sexual encounter with a member of the same sex, why, he must secretly be gay.

This is a good point. Many things in life belong on a continuum where there's no black & white divide. If you don't think sexuality is one of them you haven't thought very hard about it.

Fitz confesses: "When I drive by the local strip joint I’m not turned on by the sign that says “totally nude nudes”. I’m turned on by the idea of sex it relates to."

Plus sometimes they have free food, right?

I don't have a "local strip joint," but when I'm traveling in "the heartland" I often see those signs, and I'm never "turned on." They can be funny though.

Now say 3 Hail Marys and one Our Father, Fitz. You nasty, naughty boy.

Bill asks: "If I would have sex with myself, does that make me gay?"

No. But if you could, it would make you flexible.

That said, I believe Craig is a total ass bandit.

Listen, Bill, I do the comedy around here.

But there's always room for more.

Moe,

That is something that I've often wondered about. How come MA dosn't have more strip clubs?

I know that the city government of Boston has traditionally tried to keep them out. I'm wondering if it's a state-wide thing as well, and if it's more for legal or for regional-cultural reasons?

I'm happy not to see strip clubs when i drive around, of course. Something that MA can be proud of. I'm just curious as to whether this is an unfounded impression or whether strip clubs and other forms of the sex trade are really less common in New England.

Self-identity (what we call ourselves) and ascribed identity (how others label us), attraction, fantasy, behavior are not the same.

"The living world," Kinsey said "is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

I find the Bailey study to be deeply flawed. He presumes that a man's sexual orientation can be measured by visual stimulation (the size of his erection while watching a short video clip). This is absurd. Sexual orientation -- and identity -- is about so much more than that!

If we try to define heterosexuality as Kinsey 0 (no same-sex attraction, behavior) and homosexuality as Kinsey 6 (no other-sex attracttion, behavior) and bisexuality as Kinsey 3 (an exactly equal mix of heterosexual and homosexual attraction, behavior) we would probably find that a large percentage of people fit into NONE of these three categories. In fact, each of these categories is broad, and -- for SOME people -- subject to change over time.

I speak at colleges and universities about this sexual orientation and labels. The more people I speak with, the more I realize that this is a very complex subject.

I find the Bailey study to be deeply flawed. He presumes that a man's sexual orientation can be measured by visual stimulation (the size of his erection while watching a short video clip). This is absurd. Sexual orientation -- and identity -- is about so much more than that!

Researchers have to pick something to measure. The study provides evidence for the following claim: a man will either be aroused (in a physically measurable way) by straight porn or by gay porn. This is an interesting finding, even if this dichotomy shouldn't define the categories "straight" and "gay", and even if there is a third category or a continuum of categories that cannot be measured this way.

jenny

There's no continuum. Bisexuals include two distinct types:
1. Essentially hetero guys who will take any opportunity to drop a load anywhere. (Its often a lot easier to find willing men than women.)
2. Essentially gay guys who are in denial.

Someone like Craig, with a heterosexual outlet and incentives to keep up his "family values" image, seems much more likely to be the latter. He is much more likely to have done what he is alleged to have done if he isn't satisfied by heterosexual intercourse period. Gay sex can never be fully satisfying for an essentially straight guy, and therefore Craig is much less likely to risk his career over it if he is straight. I'd say his chances of being in the first category are significantly less than 1/4.

Male bisexuals that is. Women are on a continuum and this often shifts for them over time.

For what it's worth, I've known any number of straight women who claim to find images of women erotic, but who don't feel the same way about images of men.

I don't want to go so far as to say that those women are narcissistic, but it seams to me that arousal frequently has narcissistic elements. Some straight men express their experience of sexual arousal in terms of their awareness of the fact that their female partner is aroused by them. They are, in a sense then, aroused by their own virility. But if that can work when mediated through a partner, why not when mediated through an image?

Their really is quite a bit more empirical data on human sexuality than the press actively reports on and more than the homosexual activists would care to admit to.

The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.

“{the Laumann study,} was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publication, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings. One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist” & stating that “[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,”

“Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the subject. It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but “because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.”

since 1994—for ten years—there has existed solid epidemiologic
evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity” is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors.”

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Organization-Sexuality-Sexual-Practices/dp/0226469573

http://sociology.uchicago.edu/faculty/laumann.html

There's no continuum. Bisexuals include two distinct types:
1. Essentially hetero guys who will take any opportunity to drop a load anywhere. (Its often a lot easier to find willing men than women.)
2. Essentially gay guys who are in denial.

Nonsense. I self-identify as straight, not bisexual, because I am attracted to women. Like many guys, I find myself sizing up women several times a day: imagining them naked, watching the way they walk, noticing small physical details, fantasizing about sex with them, whatever. My attraction to women is completely unbidden, uncomplicated by second thoughts or agonizing of any kind. I never, ever, ever have the same kinds of thoughts about men. In fact, the thought kind of grosses me out, and the guys I know personally are completely out of the question. Many of the women I know, on the other hand...

And yet, I have had (and enjoyed) sex with men on a couple of occasions. Not in public places, mind you, but strictly with men not otherwise known to me, and never repeated (if I got to know them at all, it would become impossible). It wasn't a matter of "dropping a load anywhere" either, if you get my drift. I chose to have sex with men because I was intrigued and turned on by the idea--the breaking of taboos, the change in roles, the unfamiliar sensory stimuli, the different possibilities. And afterwards, I would go out into the street again and watch the pretty girls go by, with never a second glance to any men I'd see.

I suspect somemthing much like this, rather than undifferentiated load-dropping or agonized denial, is what was in Larry Craig's mind last week.

I do the comedy around here.

Oh goodness, he really does think he's funny.

"we would probably find that a large percentage of people fit into NONE of these three categories. In fact, each of these categories is broad, and -- for SOME people -- subject to change over time."

I would like to know what ramifications this admission can have on arguments for inmutabiltiy advanced with such fervor by the LGBTQ community.

I would like to know what ramifications this admission can have on arguments for inmutabiltiy advanced with such fervor by the LGBTQ community.

I don't think sex is as many a splendored thing as Ms. Ochs does, but even granting her belief that sexual preferences may change over time (for some people) doesn't imply that one should go to any length to be straight, or to insure that your children are straight. It's the arguments for mutability that are advanced with fervor, often with tragic and sickening results.

jenny

Fitz quotes me:

"we would probably find that a large percentage of people fit into NONE of these three categories. In fact, each of these categories is broad, and -- for SOME people -- subject to change over time."

and asks: "I would like to know what ramifications this admission can have on arguments for inmutabiltiy advanced with such fervor by the LGBTQ community."

My experience and observations lead me to suspect that sexual orientation is -- for most of us -- experienced as immutable. I experience myself as immutably bisexual. I don't believe that I chose my own sexual orientation -- rather, I became aware of it over time. It also doesn't mean that I need to have a male and female lover at the same time in order to be fulfilled -- I'm quite content with the one partner I have.

My wife, in turn, identifies as lesbian -- and has never found herself attracted to a man. She certainly doesn't experience her orientation as a choice (though she's happy with the cards she was dealt!).

And I'm not convinced that sexual orientation itself changes over time in the way that some people would understand that statement. I don't believe that someone straight can become gay by deciding to do so, or vice versa.

Sexuality is complex, and our individual sexualities do change over time as we progress through life:

We may find our level of sexual desire rising and falling; we may become newly interested in -- or bored with -- a particular sexual activity, we may find ourselves no longer attracted to someone who we were once intensely drawn to, etc. We may fall in love with -- and/or find ourselves attracted to -- a new person, which may lead us to discover new things about our sexuality and our potential.

Along this line, a person could find her/himself attracted to a person who is of a different sex than the people to whom s/he had previously been attracted. In these ways, sexuality is fluid.

And along our paths of self-discovery, we may adopt new labels as we grow more comfortable with who we are, or as we learn new things about ourselves, or as we decide that different words describe us more accurately.

Robyn Ochs

“Sexuality is complex, and our individual sexualities do change over time as we progress through life.

Certainly: human sexuality is complex. However – the more rigorous empirical research has denoted distinct patterns in this change. It seems this pattern is “one-directional”. While such studies don’t negate your personal experience, they do say something about human sexuality, the nature of its “fluidity” and a general understanding of what reasonable expectations can be deduced about those engaging or identifying as homosexual.

“All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.” Furthermore, as was already evident in the data concerning prevalence of homosexuality—however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity—before age eighteen and after age eighteen, Laumann et al., found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one -directional: declining, and very significantly so. “Sexual orientation” wasn’t just not a stable trait, homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women—the pull of the normative, as it were.”

(See Laumann et al., chapters eight and nine.)”
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Chicago: University of Chicago

“I don't believe that I chose my own sexual orientation -- rather, I became aware of it over time. It also doesn't mean that I need to have a male and female lover at the same time in order to be fulfilled -- I'm quite content with the one partner I have.”

But this particular “way” of identifying as a bisexual (only requiring one partner for fulfillment) seems predicated on your experiences as an individual bisexual. I can see no reason why another bi-sexual could not claim that his/her identity would not be complete without both.

There's no continuum. Bisexuals include two distinct types:
1. Essentially hetero guys who will take any opportunity to drop a load anywhere. (Its often a lot easier to find willing men than women.)
2. Essentially gay guys who are in denial.

Argument through assertion. Look, people must have the right to self-identify, and they must have the right to have sex with whomever they want. If someone enjoys having sex with both genders, what business is it of yours to tell him or her it's illegitimate? It's none of your business.

Re: Look, people must have the right to self-identify, and they must have the right to have sex with whomever they want.

"Must"? I don't recognize that they 'must' do any such thing.

I can see a very strong argument why people who have no choice about their homosexual orientation, ought to be entitled to the same rights, respect, and compassion as anyone else, and if that includes the right to gay marriage, then i suppose I could accept gay marriage. I see absolutely no reason why i ought to extend to anyone, gay or straight, 'the right to have sex with whomever they want', or to respect the beliefs or behaviors of someone who chooses to f--- other people (men or women) through a hole in the wall of a restroom.

I can accept homosexuality as an immutable, inborn orientation, and that there isn't necessarily anything evil in acting according to an inborn homosexual nature that is unchosen and immutable. but I don't agree that it's OK simply to 'choose' it.

I can accept homosexuality as an immutable, inborn orientation, and that there isn't necessarily anything evil in acting according to an inborn homosexual nature that is unchosen and immutable. but I don't agree that it's OK simply to 'choose' it.

That's ok. Many people have broken moral compasses.

Freddie,

Do you really not see anything wrong with the type of behavior that was going on in San Francisco bath houses around 1980? (I'm not going to describe the particular acts, because they are so unspeakable, but you can look them up.)

Wait till after we die, then we can see which of us has the broken moral compass.

What did Bailey actually use for visual stimulation? Gay porn and straight porn, as one claimed?

No. He used male-male porn and female-female porn, because he believed that the mere presence of a man would be a cause for error in case he was hot. We couldn't know if the viewer was aroused by the man or the woman (or potentially both, but Bailey didn't assume this to be possible).

Question: If male sexuality is measured solely by erection, why is Viagra selling so well? Whee, all those spam mails with deliberately misspelled claims of "she will love you even more" is really targetting hundreds of millions of gay men in denial!!!!

I'm so sick and tired of biphobic binary bull.
Either we don't exist because we lie or we shouldn't exist because we should choose.
Well, how about the same restrictions on race, huh? "Either you have only Asian girlfriends or only Caucasian girlfriends! Anything else is impossible due to your immutable inner racial compass! And if it isn't, my patently offensive White Supremacist attitude backed by history, religion and money will demand that you choose!"

I've had long-term relationships with women and with men, albeit never at the same time. I've been deeply in love, broken-hearted, aroused, bored, surprised, disappointed, content, malcontent and 100% romantically and sexually alive and human with both. Asking me to cut away or deny half of my life is mean and dehumanising.
Telling me I'm 'really gay' is demeaning the women I've loved and telling me I'm 'really straight' is demeaning the men I've loved.

Wherein lie the moral complications of love? Of safe sex?

dolldom puddinglike anovesical flyaway crypt taboparesis parisology autography
http://www.bestbandb.co.uk/ >Best Bed & Breakfast
http://www.buffalochip.org