Hubbry Logo
Sexual fluiditySexual fluidityMain
Open search
Sexual fluidity
Community hub
Sexual fluidity
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Sexual fluidity
Sexual fluidity
Sexual fluidity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Bisexuality topics
      
Sexual identities
Studies
Attitudes, slang and discrimination
Community and literature
Lists
See also
LGBTQ portal

Sexual fluidity is one or more changes in sexuality or sexual identity (sometimes known as sexual orientation identity). Sexual orientation is stable for the vast majority of people, but some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation, and this is more likely for women than men.[1] There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy.[2][3] Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life, and does not have to align with biological sex, sexual behavior, or actual sexual orientation.[4]: 52 

According to scientific consensus, sexual orientation is not a choice.[5][6] Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biological theories, especially for explaining male sexual orientation.[4][5] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation can be at any point along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.[7]

Use of the term sexual fluidity has been attributed to psychologist Lisa M. Diamond,[8][9] who observed that many women's attractions towards women and men changed over time, although changes were modest (1 kinsey scale point, on average).[4] The results of a large-scale, longitudinal study by Savin-Williams, Joyner, and Rieger (2012) indicated that stability of sexual orientation identity over a six-year period was more common than change, and that stability was greatest among men and those identifying as heterosexual.[10] While stability is more common than change, change in sexual orientation identity does occur and the vast majority of research indicates that female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality. This could be attributed to females' higher erotic plasticity or to sociocultural factors that socialize women to be more open to change.[11] Due to the gender differences in the stability of sexual orientation identity, male and female sexuality may not function via the same mechanisms. Researchers continue to analyze sexual fluidity to better determine its relationship to sexual orientation subgroups (i.e., bisexual, lesbian, gay, etc.).

Background

[edit]

Often, sexual orientation and sexual identity are not distinguished, which can impact accurately assessing sexual identity and whether or not sexual orientation is able to change; sexual orientation identity can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation.[12][13][14] While the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and American Psychiatric Association state that sexual orientation is innate, continuous or fixed throughout their lives for some people, but is fluid or changes over time for others,[15][16] the American Psychological Association distinguishes between sexual orientation (an innate attraction) and sexual orientation identity (which may change at any point in a person's life).[17] Scientists and mental health professionals generally do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice.[5][18]

The American Psychological Association states that "sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."[6] They say that "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events."[17] The American Psychiatric Association says individuals may "become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual" and "opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation". They do, however, encourage gay affirmative psychotherapy.[16]

In the first decade of the 2000s, psychologist Lisa M. Diamond studied 80 non-heterosexual women over several years. She found that in this group, changes in sexual identity were common, although they were typically between adjacent identity categories (such as 'lesbian' and 'bisexual'). Some change in self-reported sexual feeling occurred among many of the women, but it was small, only averaging about 1 point on the Kinsey scale on average. The range of these women's potential attractions was limited by their sexual orientations, but sexual fluidity permitted movement within that range.[4]: 56 

In her book Sexual Fluidity, which was awarded with the 2009 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues Distinguished Book Award by Division 44 of the American Psychological Association, Diamond speaks of female sexuality and trying to go beyond the language of "phases" and "denial", arguing that traditional labels for sexual desire are inadequate. For some of 100 non-heterosexual women she followed in her study over a period of 10 years, the word bisexual did not truly express the versatile nature of their sexuality. Diamond calls "for an expanded understanding of same-sex sexuality."[19]

Diamond, when reviewing research on lesbian and bisexual women's sexual identities, stated that studies find "change and fluidity in same-sex sexuality that contradict conventional models of sexual orientation as a fixed and uniformly early-developing trait."[20] She suggested that sexual orientation is a phenomenon more connected with female non-heterosexual sexuality, stating, "whereas sexual orientation in men appears to operate as a stable erotic 'compass' reliably channeling sexual arousal and motivation toward one gender or the other, sexual orientation in women does not appear to function in this fashion... As a result of these phenomena, women's same-sex sexuality expresses itself differently from men's same-sex sexuality at every stage of the life course."[21]

Biology and stability

[edit]

Conversion therapy (attempts to change sexual orientation) is rarely successful. In Maccio's (2011) review of sexual reorientation therapy attempts, she lists two studies that claim to have successfully converted gay men and lesbians to heterosexuals and four that demonstrate the contrary. She sought to settle the debate using a sample that was not recruited from religious organizations. The study consisted of 37 former conversion therapy participants (62.2% were male) from various cultural and religious backgrounds who currently or previously identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant shifts in sexual orientation from pre- to post-treatment. In follow-up sessions, the few changes in sexual orientation that did occur following therapy did not last. This study stands as support for the biological origin of sexual orientation, but the largely male sample population confounds the findings.[22]

Further support for the biological origin of sexual orientation is that gender atypical behavior in childhood (e.g., a young boy playing with dolls) appears to predict homosexuality in adulthood (see childhood gender nonconformity). A longitudinal study by Drummond et al. (2008) looked at young girls with gender dysphoria (a significant example of gender atypical behavior) and found that the majority of these girls grew up to identify as bisexual or lesbian.[23] Many retrospective studies looking at childhood behavior are criticized for potential memory errors;[24] so a study by Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax, & Bailey (2008) used home videos to investigate the relationship between childhood behaviors and adult sexual orientation. The results of this study support biological causation, but an understanding of how cultural assumptions about sexuality can affect sexual identity formation is also considered.[25]

There is strong evidence for a relationship between fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation, and there has been biological research done to investigate potential biological determinants of sexual orientation in men and women. One theory is the second to fourth finger ratio (2D:4D) theory. Some studies have discovered that heterosexual women had higher 2D:4D ratios than did lesbian women but the difference was not found between heterosexual and gay men.[26] Similarly, a study has shown that homosexual men have a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the anterior hypothalamus that is the size of females'.[27] Twin and family studies have also found a genetic influence.[4]

Changes in sexuality

[edit]

Demographics

[edit]
Further information: Demographics of sexual orientation, Bisexuality § Demographics and prevalence, and LGBTQ community § Demographics

One study by Steven E. Mock and Richard P. Eibach from 2011 shows 2% of 2,560 adult participants included in National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States reported change of sexual orientation identities after a 10-year period: 0.78% of male and 1.36% of female persons that identified themselves to be heterosexuals at the beginning of the 10-year period, as well as 63.6% of lesbians, 64.7% of bisexual females, 9.52% of gay males, and 47% of bisexual males. According to the study, "this pattern was consistent with the hypothesis that heterosexuality is a more stable sexual orientation identity, perhaps because of its normative status. However, male homosexual identity, although less stable than heterosexual identity, was relatively stable compared to the other sexual minority identities". Having only adults included in the examined group, they did not find the differences in fluidity which were affected by age of the participants. However, they stated that "research on attitude stability and change suggests most change occurs in adolescence and young adulthood (Alwin & Krosnick, 1991; Krosnick & Alwin, 1989), which could explain the diminished impact of age after that point".[28]

Males versus females

[edit]

Research generally indicates that while the vast majority of men and women are stable and unchanging in their orientation and identity; when it comes to those who are fluid, female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality.[4] In a seminal review of the sexual orientation literature, stimulated by the findings that the 1970s sexual revolution affected female sexuality more so than male sexuality, research by Baumeister et al. indicated that when compared to males, females have lower concordance between sexual attitudes and behaviors, and sociocultural factors affect female sexuality to a greater degree; it also found that personal change in sexuality is more common for females compared to males.[11] Female sexuality (lesbian and heterosexual) changes significantly more than males on both dimensional and categorical measures of sexual orientation.[29] Furthermore, the majority of homosexual women who previously identified as a different sexual orientation identified as heterosexual; whereas for males, the majority previously identified as bisexual, which the authors believe support the idea of greater fluidity in female sexuality.[29] Females also report having identified with more than one sexual orientation, more often than males and are found to have higher levels of sexual orientation mobility. Females also report being bisexual or unsure of their sexuality more often than males, who more commonly report being exclusively gay or heterosexual.[30] Over a six-year period, women have also been found to display more shifts in sexual orientation identity and were more likely to define their sexual orientation with non-exclusive terms.[10]

The social constructivist view suggests that sexual desire is a product of cultural and psychosocial processes[31] and that men and women are socialized differently. This difference in socialization can explain differences in sexual desire and stability of sexual orientation. Male sexuality is centered around physical factors, whereas female sexuality is centered around sociocultural factors,[11] making female sexuality inherently more open to change. The greater effect on female sexuality in 1970s sexual revolution shows that female shifts in sexual orientation identity may be due to greater exposure to moderating factors (such as the media).[10] In western culture, women are also expected to be more emotionally expressive and intimate towards both males and females. This socialization is a plausible cause of greater female sexual fluidity.[32]

An evolutionary psychology hypothesis proposes that bisexuality enables women to reduce conflict with other women, by promoting each other's mothering contributions, thus ensuring their reproductive success. According to this view, women are capable of forming romantic bonds with both sexes and sexual fluidity may be explained as a reproductive strategy that ensures the survival of offspring.[33]

A longitudinal study concluded that stability of sexual orientation was more common than change.[10] Gender differences in the stability of sexual orientation may vary by subgroup and could possibly be related to individual differences more than gender-wide characteristics.[30]

Youth (age 14–21)

[edit]

One study that did compare the stability of youth sexual orientation identity across genders found results opposite to most done with adult samples. The study compared non-heterosexual male and female sexual orientation over a year and concluded that female youth were more likely to report consistent sexual identities than males.[13] The study was conducted over a single year.

Youth appears to be when most change in sexual orientation identity occurs for females. A 10-year study compared sexual orientation as measured at four times during the study. The most change was found between the first (taken at 18 years of age) and second (taken at 20 years of age) measurements which was the only time bracket that fell during adolescence.[34]

A population-based study conducted over 6 years found that nonheterosexual (gay/lesbian/bisexual) male and female participants were more likely to change sexual orientation identity than heterosexual participants.[35] A yearlong study found that sexual identity was more stable for gay and lesbian youth participants when compared to bisexual participants.[13]

The identity integration process that individuals go through during adolescence appears to be associated with changes in sexual identity; adolescents who score higher on identity integration measures are more consistent in their sexual orientation. Bisexual youths seem to take longer to form their sexual identities than do consistently homosexual or heterosexual identifying youths[13] so bisexuality may be seen as a transitional phase during adolescence. Rosario et al. (2006) conclude that "acceptance, commitment, and integration of a gay/lesbian identity is an ongoing developmental process that, for many youths, may extend through adolescence and beyond."[13]

Sabra L. Katz-Wise and Janet S. Hide report in article published 2014 in "Archives of Sexual Behavior" of their study on 188 female and male young adults in the United States with a same-gender orientation, aged 18–26 years. In that cohort, sexual fluidity in attractions was reported by 63% of females and 50% of males, with 48% of those females and 34% of those males reporting fluidity in sexual orientation identity.[36]

Bisexuality as a transitional phase

[edit]
See also: Bisexuality

Bisexuality as a transitional phase on the way to identifying as exclusively lesbian or gay has also been studied. In a large-scale, longitudinal study, participants who identified as bisexual at one point in time were especially likely to change sexual orientation identity throughout the six-year study.[10] A second longitudinal study found conflicting results. If bisexuality is a transitional phase, as people grow older the number identifying as bisexual should decline. Over the 10-year span of this study (using a female-only sample), the overall number of individuals identifying as bisexual remained relatively constant (hovering between 50 and 60%), suggesting that bisexuality is a third orientation, distinct from homosexuality and heterosexuality and can be stable.[34] A third longitudinal study by Kinnish, Strassberg, and Turner (2005) supports this theory. While sex differences in sexual orientation stability were found for heterosexuals and gays/lesbians, no sex difference was found for bisexual men and women.[29]

Society and culture

[edit]

The exploration on sexual fluidity initiated by Lisa M. Diamond presented a cultural challenge to the LGBT community; this is because although researchers usually emphasize that changes in sexual orientation are unlikely, despite conversion therapy attempts, sexual identity can change over time. That sexual orientation is not always stable challenges the views of many within the LGBT community, who believe that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable.[37]

There is some level of cultural debate regarding the question of how (and if) fluidity exists among men,[38] including questions regarding fluctuations in attractions and arousal in male bisexuals.[39]

Sexual fluidity may overlap with the label abrosexual, which has been used to refer to regular changes in one's sexuality.[40][41] Bi-cycle is a slang term used amongst bisexuals to refer to sexual fluidity between how much attraction they feel towards certain genders.[42]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sexual fluidity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sexual fluidity refers to changes over time in one or more dimensions of , including , behaviors, or self-identified labels, reflecting a capacity for flexibility rather than rigid categorization. Longitudinal studies indicate that sexual orientation is stable for the vast majority of individuals, with self-reported identity changes occurring in approximately 9% of U.S. adults over five-year periods, though genital patterns show even greater consistency. women demonstrate higher rates of fluidity than men, with 11% of women versus 6% of men reporting identity shifts, a observed across and adulthood and potentially linked to differences in the categorical nature of versus sexual responsiveness. Fluidity is more prevalent among sexual minorities, adolescents, and gender-diverse persons, often involving nonexclusive , but core stability predominates, raising questions about measurement artifacts, social pressures, and biological constraints in interpreting reported changes. Research limitations, including reliance on retrospective self-reports and samples skewed toward Western, populations, underscore the need for prospective, diverse, and physiologically validated studies to distinguish genuine shifts from labeling variability.

Definitions and Conceptual Framework

Core Definitions

Sexual fluidity refers to the capacity for situational or temporal variability in an individual's sexual attractions, desires, or responsiveness, allowing for changes that deviate from a presumed fixed sexual orientation. This variability can manifest as shifts in the gender of preferred partners or intensity of attractions, often influenced by interpersonal, cultural, or developmental contexts rather than rigid categorical predispositions. Empirical definitions emphasize flexibility in sexual responsiveness, distinct from mere experimentation or opportunism, and typically exclude purely behavioral changes without corresponding shifts in subjective desire. The concept breaks down into distinct domains: attraction fluidity, involving alterations in the direction or strength of erotic interests (e.g., from predominantly opposite-sex to including same-sex attractions); behavioral fluidity, reflected in partner choices or sexual activities that may not consistently match reported attractions; and identity fluidity, marked by changes in self-labels such as from "heterosexual" to "bisexual" over time. These domains do not always align; for instance, longitudinal data from cohorts of women indicate that identity labels changed in approximately 67% of participants over a decade, even as core attractions exhibited relative stability modulated by relational contexts. Sexual fluidity is differentiated from , which implies concurrent attractions to multiple genders without necessitating change; fluidity instead highlights dynamic potential for reconfiguration, potentially bidirectional (e.g., from exclusive same-sex to opposite-sex orientations). operationalizes it via self-reports or prospective tracking, though critiques note that self-reported fluidity may conflate label instability with underlying physiological specificity, as genital patterns in settings often remain category-specific despite subjective fluidity claims. Sex differences feature prominently in definitions, with evidence suggesting greater prevalence among women, where attractions show higher context-dependence compared to men's more consistent, gender-targeted responses.

Distinctions from Fixed Orientation Models

Fixed orientation models posit as a largely immutable trait, typically established early in life and characterized by consistent patterns of attraction, often categorized dichotomously (heterosexual vs. homosexual) or along a static continuum such as the , with minimal capacity for change beyond . These models emphasize and stability, drawing from evidence like twin studies suggesting genetic influences on orientation consistency, and have been invoked to underscore immutability in legal and social contexts. In contrast, sexual fluidity frameworks describe orientation as dynamic and context-sensitive, incorporating variability in attractions, self-identification, and behavior over time or in response to situational factors, without presupposing a fixed core. A primary distinction lies in the treatment of change: fixed models predict high longitudinal stability, viewing shifts as rare errors in self-reporting or external influences like experimentation, whereas fluidity models normalize change as intrinsic, particularly through mechanisms like heightened situational responsiveness or evolving relational priorities. Empirical longitudinal data reveal moderate stability overall—such as in a 10-year U.S. national survey where 90% of participants retained their baseline orientation identity—but also document fluidity in 2-10% annually, with higher rates among women and those initially identifying as bisexual. Fluidity proponents, including researcher Lisa Diamond, highlight women's greater day-to-day variability in attractions, attributing it to broader erotic flexibility rather than instability per se, challenging male-centric assumptions in fixed models derived from predominantly gay male samples. Another key divergence concerns measurement: fixed models prioritize physiological indicators like genital patterns, which exhibit greater stability over decades compared to self-reported identity, suggesting a biological anchor resistant to fluidity claims. Fluidity models, however, integrate subjective elements—attractions, labels, and behaviors—as equally valid markers of orientation, arguing that discordance between and identity reflects contextual adaptability rather than inconsistency. This leads to differing implications for categorization; fixed approaches favor discrete groups for research and policy, while fluidity underscores gradients and transitions, as seen in studies where 10% of young adults shifted identities over two months, often toward non-exclusivity. Such distinctions highlight tensions between essentialist views of orientation as trait-like and constructivist perspectives emphasizing experiential malleability, with fluidity gaining traction from data on non-linear trajectories rather than uniform fixity.

Biological Foundations

Genetic and Hormonal Influences

Twin studies indicate moderate for , estimated at approximately 40% in males and 20% in females, suggesting a stronger genetic influence on male orientation stability compared to females. This disparity aligns with observed patterns of greater sexual fluidity among women, as lower implies more room for non-shared environmental and experiential factors to influence attraction and over time. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) further reveal that same-sex sexual is polygenic, with multiple genetic variants collectively accounting for 8-25% of variance, rather than a single deterministic "gay gene." This polygenic architecture supports the existence of multiple causal pathways, including those permitting fluidity, as genetic predispositions do not rigidly fix orientation but interact with developmental and social contexts. Prenatal hormonal exposure, particularly androgens like , plays a primary role in organizing , with higher levels promoting heterosexual male-typical patterns and lower or atypical exposure linked to outcomes. Evidence from (CAH), where females experience elevated prenatal androgens, shows significantly increased rates of bisexual or homosexual orientation—41% in severe cases versus 5% in controls—demonstrating hormones' influence on predisposition but not absolute determination, as outcomes vary. Digit ratios (2D:4D), a proxy for prenatal exposure, correlate with orientation: homosexual women often exhibit more masculinized (lower) ratios, though findings are inconsistent in men. These markers suggest that variations in early hormonal milieu contribute to the biological substrate for orientation, potentially enabling greater plasticity in females, whose typical lower levels may foster malleability in responsiveness to later cues, contrasting with more canalized male trajectories. Postnatal hormonal fluctuations, such as those in menstrual cycles, influence but show limited direct causation of orientation shifts, underscoring prenatal effects as foundational while allowing for observed fluidity primarily in behavioral domains.

Neurological and Physiological Evidence

Physiological assessments of , particularly through genital plethysmography, demonstrate marked sex differences in response specificity. Heterosexual men exhibit strong genital to female sexual stimuli but minimal response to male stimuli, while homosexual men show the inverse pattern, reflecting category-specific aligned with orientation. Heterosexual and homosexual women, however, display genital to both male and female stimuli, often irrespective of their self-reported orientation, indicating a broader physiological responsiveness. This non-specificity in women correlates with lower concordance between subjective reported and physiological measures compared to men, a pattern replicated across multiple studies and potentially facilitating greater variability in sexual attractions over time. Functional neuroimaging, including fMRI, reveals analogous sex differences in neural processing of sexual cues. Men's responses, particularly in regions like the and , align closely with orientation-specific stimuli, mirroring genital specificity. In women, activation patterns in areas such as the and insula show reduced exclusivity, with heterosexual women occasionally responding to same-sex erotic content, especially in contexts emphasizing emotional or relational elements. Bisexual women exhibit intermediate neural signatures, with responses blending elements of both heterosexual and homosexual patterns, suggesting a neurophysiological basis for transitional attractions. These findings imply that women's neural circuitry may permit more adaptive modulation of sexual preferences, though core orientation-linked activations persist even among those reporting fluidity. Structural brain imaging further underscores biological underpinnings, with sexual orientation correlating to differences in gray matter volume and cortical thickness, such as reduced volume in homosexual relative to heterosexual women. These traits, influenced by prenatal factors, exhibit stability rather than marked plasticity in adulthood, limiting profound shifts in orientation. Rare exceptions include documented cases of hypersexuality or altered sexual preferences, including shifts to same-sex attraction, following brain injury or trauma. Nonetheless, evidence of in reward and pathways may account for observed fluidity in behavioral expression, particularly in females, where environmental and experiential factors interact with baseline physiological flexibility. Longitudinal is scarce, but indicate that while gross brain differences remain fixed, subtle functional adaptations could underpin self-reported changes in attraction without altering foundational wiring.

Empirical Evidence on Stability

Longitudinal Studies of Orientation Consistency

Longitudinal studies tracking self-reported identity over periods ranging from months to decades have consistently demonstrated high stability, with the majority of individuals maintaining their initial categorization, particularly among those identifying as exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. In the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), which followed youth from ages 12 to 21, mobility metrics indicated overall low rates of change, with scores approximately 0.1 across the cohort, reflecting persistent consistency; heterosexual identities remained predominant and stable, while "unsure" individuals (2% of the sample) largely resolved to heterosexual (66%). Stability was higher in males than females, with female mobility scores averaging 0.125 versus 0.081 for males in early , though differences diminished among sexual minorities. A 10-year follow-up in the Midlife in the (MIDUS) study of adults (average age 47 at baseline, n=2,560) found 97.85% retention of initial identity, with only 2.15% reporting shifts; heterosexuals exhibited near-perfect stability (98.64% for women, 99.22% for men), while homosexual identities were in 90.48% of men but only 36.36% of women, and bisexual identities showed lower retention (52.94% men, 35.29% women). Changes were more prevalent among women in minority categories, often shifting toward heterosexual identification, underscoring greater consistency in male orientations and exclusive categories overall. Physiological measures reinforce this pattern of consistency. In a one-year longitudinal assessment of genital patterns alongside self-reports (n=119 adults), arousal responses to erotic stimuli displayed strong relative stability across heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual groups, with minimal mean change and no significant differences; self-reported shifts (9.6% in men, 19.4% in women) did not align with arousal changes, indicating that identity fluctuations may not reflect underlying physiological consistency. Bisexual self-identifiers reported lower stability than exclusives, consistent with findings from adolescent cohorts. A Swedish community study of adolescents (ages 14-17) reported absolute agreement in orientation at 75-85%, with heterosexuals at 87-93%; homosexual stability ranged from 17.6-40%, and bisexual from 66-80%, with girls showing more fluidity in non- categories than boys, who maintained higher rates (88.5% vs. 74.5%). These patterns align with broader evidence that while minor shifts occur—often from non- or unsure to heterosexual—core orientations, especially in males and exclusives, exhibit robust longitudinal consistency.

Stability in Sexual Arousal and Attraction

Physiological measures of , such as genital responses to erotic stimuli, exhibit high test-retest reliability over short intervals. In studies using and , patterns of category-specific —preferential response to one's preferred sex—demonstrated stability across testing sessions separated by one month, with correlations indicating consistent discrimination between stimuli (r > 0.70 for men). Longer-term longitudinal assessments confirm this robustness; in a cohort of 104 men and 144 women retested after an average of 1.5 years, genital patterns showed moderate to high temporal stability, with relative correlations of r = 0.61 for men and r = 0.51 for women between preferred and non-preferred stimuli. These findings hold even when self-reported shifted, as genital responses did not correspond to reported changes, suggesting as a more fixed underlying dimension less prone to or . Self-reported , while subject to greater variability due to reliance on and potential artifacts, also displays substantial stability in samples. Among young adults tracked over two years, exclusive opposite-sex attraction remained consistent for 93% of individuals, with heterosexual identifiers showing the highest retention rates compared to bisexual or homosexual groups. In broader panels, over 80% of participants maintained their baseline attraction categories across multiple waves spanning young adulthood, though non-exclusive attractions evidenced slightly higher flux (10-20% change). Stability coefficients for attraction intensity, assessed via scales tracking same- and other-sex feelings, ranged from r = 0.70 to 0.90 across annual intervals in mixed-orientation samples, underscoring directional consistency despite minor intensity fluctuations. Discrepancies between and attraction reports highlight that while subjective attraction may incorporate contextual or emotional factors, core patterns align reliably over time for most individuals.
MeasureStability MetricTime IntervalKey FindingSource
Genital Arousal (Men)r = 0.61 (relative to preferred stimuli)~1.5 yearsHigh consistency despite self-report changes
Genital Arousal (Women)r = 0.51 (relative to preferred stimuli)~1.5 yearsModerate stability, non-concordant with identity shifts
Self-Reported Attraction (Heterosexuals)93% retention2 yearsMaximal stability in exclusive opposite-sex groups
Attraction Intensity Scalesr = 0.70-0.90AnnualReliable directional patterns
These data indicate that both and attraction operate as relatively enduring traits, with physiological indices providing objective corroboration less susceptible to self-presentation effects observed in surveys. Twin and genetic studies further support estimates of 30-50% for arousal specificity, implying biological anchoring that resists environmental modulation over adulthood. However, rare discordance cases—where arousal precedes or contradicts reported attraction—underscore the multidimensionality of sexual response, though aggregate evidence favors stability as the normative trajectory.

Empirical Evidence on Fluidity

Observed Changes in Identity and Behavior

In longitudinal , changes in self-reported have been documented, though they are more prevalent among individuals than the general . A 10-year study of 79 women initially identifying as , bisexual, or unlabeled found that two-thirds altered their identity labels at least once, with one-third changing multiple times; these shifts primarily involved adopting bisexual or unlabeled identities rather than moving to exclusive heterosexual or categories. In contrast, the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) survey, tracking 2,560 adults from 1995-1996 to 2004-2006, reported high overall stability, with approximately 90% consistently identifying as heterosexual across both waves; however, among the minority with identities at baseline, instability was notable, including common transitions away from bisexual labels—particularly for men—while women's bisexual and homosexual identities exhibited lower retention rates than men's homosexual identities. Youth samples reveal higher rates of identity flux during developmental periods. In the Pittsburgh Girls Study, a longitudinal assessment of 1,040 urban girls from ages 14 to 22 identified multiple trajectories of , with 63% experiencing at least one change in self-reported attraction or identity (mean of 1.6 changes per person); changes were most frequent among those with primarily same-sex or bisexual patterns, averaging 3.1 and 2.7 changes, respectively, compared to 1.0 for primarily other-sex oriented individuals. Such shifts often involved temporary adoption of non-exclusive labels before stabilization, though cognitive indicators like attraction and identity typically preceded behavioral manifestations like partnering. Observed changes in sexual frequently diverge from identity stability, with individuals reporting variations in partner over time. In Diamond's cohort, every participant showed a decline in the ratio of same-sex to other-sex romantic or sexual involvements across the 10-year span, indicating a general trend toward increased opposite-sex regardless of label changes. Broader longitudinal data corroborate this, as some heterosexual-identified adults engage in same-sex later in life, while others with minority identities pursue predominantly opposite-sex partnerships; for instance, in youth cohorts, behavioral indicators lagged behind identity shifts, with partnering patterns reflecting situational or relational factors rather than fixed orientations. Rare temporary changes in sexual behavior can also arise from substance use, such as methamphetamine or GHB, which lower inhibitions and may facilitate same-sex acts in chemsex contexts, particularly among men who have sex with men, with effects typically reversing upon cessation. These discrepancies highlight that can exhibit greater malleability than self-reported identity, influenced by opportunity and , though aggregate trends show persistence in predominant partner preferences for most individuals.

Patterns in Bisexuality and Transitional Phases

Longitudinal studies have documented patterns of change in bisexual identification, with bisexual labels showing lower stability than exclusive heterosexual or homosexual identities across young adulthood. In a study of over 13,000 U.S. young adults tracked from ages 18-26, heterosexuality demonstrated the highest stability (98% retention), while bisexual identity exhibited instability comparable to homosexuality among women, with only about 60-70% retention over the period. Among males, bisexual identification frequently appears as a transitional phase toward exclusive . Surveys of -identified men reveal that a substantial portion report prior bisexual self-labeling before adopting a identity, a termed "transitional bisexuality," potentially reflecting exploratory or delayed recognition of predominant same-sex attractions. A 1997 longitudinal analysis of bisexual men identified predictors such as higher same-sex and lower opposite-sex as factors increasing movement toward homosexual identification over time. In females, patterns differ, with bisexual or unlabeled identities often emerging or strengthening over time rather than resolving into exclusivity. A 10-year of 79 women found that two-thirds changed labels, but bisexual women retained stable patterns of attraction to both sexes, contradicting a strict transitional model while indicating label fluidity amid persistent . However, in youth cohorts, some bisexual identifications serve as intermediate stages to identities, similar to male patterns but at lower rates. These transitional dynamics correlate with initial in or behavior, but shifts often align with intensification of one orientation's dominance, as evidenced by genital measures in longitudinal genital response studies showing variability more pronounced in bisexual-identifying individuals. Such patterns underscore 's association with higher orientation fluidity, though stable bisexual orientations exist, particularly where responses demonstrate genuine dual attraction.

Sex Differences

Greater Fluidity in Females

Empirical research, including longitudinal studies, consistently indicates that females display greater sexual fluidity than males, manifested in shifts in self-reported attractions, identities, and behaviors over time. In a 10-year longitudinal study of 79 non-heterosexual women aged 16-23 at baseline, 67% changed their sexual identity labels at least once, with changes occurring bidirectionally across lesbian, bisexual, and unlabeled categories rather than predominantly toward heterosexuality. These shifts were often linked to evolving emotional bonds in relationships, highlighting the role of interpersonal context in female sexual responsiveness. Similar patterns emerge in broader samples, where cisgender women reported sexual fluidity—defined as any change in attraction, identity, or behavior—at nearly twice the rate of cisgender men (11% versus 6%). Physiological evidence further supports this disparity, as women's genital arousal patterns exhibit lower category specificity compared to men's. Heterosexual women, for instance, show comparable physiological responses to both erotic stimuli, irrespective of their stated orientation, whereas men's is tightly aligned with their orientation—heterosexual men respond primarily to female stimuli, and homosexual men to male. This non-specificity in female , observed across multiple psychophysiological studies using , suggests a greater inherent flexibility in sexual responsiveness, potentially facilitating fluidity under varying social or relational influences. Day-to-day fluctuations in attractions also demonstrate less stability in women than in men, particularly among those with bisexual patterns. Greater sexual fluidity or attraction to both sexes in women is associated with higher sex drives, with elevated libido increasing bisexual attractions, unlike in men where it intensifies the primary orientation; this pattern holds across large samples. Population-level data reinforce these findings, with adolescent and females reporting sexual identity fluidity at rates of 46.9%, compared to 26.6% for males.00318-X/fulltext) A 2024 multinational study of over 4,000 participants confirmed higher prevalence of bisexual attractions and fluidity in women, aligning with models positing context-dependent female sexuality. While some analyses of large panels find no excess identity change in women beyond their baseline plurisexuality, the overall body of evidence from diverse methodologies points to females' elevated capacity for orientation shifts, often without corresponding instability in males' more fixed patterns.

Higher Stability in Males

Longitudinal studies consistently indicate greater stability in male self-reported sexual orientation compared to females. In a prospective study of 119 adults tracked over approximately one year, only 9.6% of men shifted their orientation classification (heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual), whereas 19.4% of women did so, with men's self-reports demonstrating stronger temporal correlations. This pattern aligns with broader reviews finding men exhibit higher consistency in orientation over time, including lower rates of change in both identity (11% for boys versus 26% for girls in adolescence) and attractions (10% versus 31%). Physiological measures reinforce this disparity. Genital arousal patterns in men tend to align more rigidly with self-identified orientation and show category-specific responses, with exclusive same-sex proving more stable in males than females across longitudinal assessments. For instance, research synthesizing multiple cohorts, such as the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, reports that men experience fewer shifts in , with exclusively homosexual patterns rarely reversing, in contrast to the more variable trajectories observed in women. These findings persist even when accounting for self-report limitations, as men's erotic responses appear less influenced by situational or relational contexts. Developmental data from youth cohorts further highlight this stability. Among adolescents and young adults, male sexual minority identities show lower mobility rates overall, with full-sample analyses revealing males at 0.081 versus females at 0.125 on orientation change metrics from ages 12 to 17. Such differences may stem from biological underpinnings, including prenatal hormonal influences that organize male sexual responsiveness more categorically, reducing plasticity relative to females. While bisexual men exhibit some change (26.3% in short-term follow-ups), this remains lower than in heterosexual or homosexual men and contrasts sharply with female patterns, underscoring sex-specific developmental rigidity.

Developmental Trajectories

Fluidity During and Young Adulthood

Longitudinal research documents shifts in self-reported identity during and young adulthood, with changes occurring steadily across these periods rather than in discrete phases. In a study tracking 13,840 aged 12-25 over multiple waves, overall mobility in identity labels was low at approximately 10%, but females exhibited higher rates of change than males (e.g., 20% of females versus 10% of males ever reported a sexual minority identity), including transitions from heterosexual to mostly heterosexual or bisexual labels. Among those initially identifying as "unsure," 66% later reported exclusively heterosexual identities, suggesting that uncertainty in early often resolves toward stability by young adulthood. Gender differences in fluidity are pronounced, with females showing greater variability across identity, attraction, and . A three-year longitudinal assessment of adolescents found identity fluidity in 26% of girls compared to 11% of boys, and attraction fluidity in 31% of girls versus 10% of boys. In an urban cohort of 2,450 girls followed from ages 14 to 22, 63.2% reported at least one change in orientation (mean of 1.6 shifts), with trajectories including primarily other-sex oriented (68.8%), bisexual (22.6%), and primarily same-sex oriented (8.6%) paths among those endorsing minority status at least once. These patterns align with broader that fluidity peaks in before declining in adulthood, potentially reflecting developmental amid hormonal, social, and cognitive maturation. Such changes are more common among sexual minorities and those with bisexual or plurisexual identities, though they do not uniformly indicate underlying shifts in patterns, which tend to show higher stability. Short-term studies corroborate this, with 11.4% of adolescents and young adults reporting a different identity after just two months, and up to 40% of sexual minority adolescents changing labels within 18 months.00318-X/fulltext) However, the prevalence of desistance—where early minority identifications revert to heterosexual—highlights that fluidity often involves transient questioning rather than permanent reconfiguration.

Changes Across the Lifespan in Adults

In longitudinal cohort studies spanning young adulthood to midlife, a subset of adults report changes in identity, attractions, or behaviors, though overall stability predominates for those with exclusive heterosexual or homosexual orientations. The Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, following a birth cohort born in 1972–1973, documented shifts in same-sex attraction from ages 21 to 38: among women, the prevalence increased from 8.8% at age 21 to 16.6% at age 26 before decreasing to 12.0% at age 38, while men showed a more linear rise from 4.2% to 6.5%. Changes in identity labels were rarer in the same cohort, with approximately 10% of women and 2% of men altering classifications between ages 21–26 and 32–38, often involving transitions involving or uncertainty. Over longer adult intervals, such as 10-year panels of Canadian adults, 10–20% reported identity shifts, with higher rates among initial sexual minorities (25–75% in some subsets) and patterns frequently reflecting movement toward or non-exclusivity. These changes are attributed in part to situational responsiveness rather than fixed traits, as evidenced by greater variability in women's attractions compared to men's across fantasy, behavior, and self-labels in multi-wave assessments. However, physiological measures like genital show higher concordance and stability over time, suggesting self-reported fluidity may partly capture label adjustments rather than core arousability shifts. Data on midlife and older adulthood (ages 40+) remain limited, with cohort evidence indicating persistence of potential changes but at lower frequencies than in younger adults. Retrospective analyses of national samples reveal that 33% report any attraction shifts over adulthood, exceeding identity changes, often linked to non-exclusive patterns that fluctuate with life events. In older cohorts, such as those tracked into late midlife, fluidity appears constrained by entrenched behaviors and factors, though small subsets experience late-emerging same-sex attractions or desistance from prior minority identities. These findings underscore that while adult lifespan changes challenge strict immutability models, they predominantly affect ambiguous or bisexual spectra, with methodological reliance on self-reports necessitating caution against overinterpreting rarity as zero .

Sociocultural and Environmental Factors

Influences of Culture and Social Norms

Cultural and social norms profoundly influence the reported prevalence and expression of sexual fluidity, often by modulating the willingness to acknowledge and label non-exclusive attractions. In environments with heightened acceptance and visibility of same-sex relationships, individuals, particularly women, exhibit greater openness to identifying changes in their sexual attractions over time. Longitudinal studies, such as those conducted by psychologist , reveal that reduced stigma and increased social legitimacy for diverse sexualities facilitate the emergence of fluid patterns, where participants report shifts in the intensity or target of attractions influenced by relational and contextual factors rather than suppression under prohibitive norms. This effect is evidenced in the capacity for , like peer networks or media portrayals, to amplify the recognition of latent attractions that persist unarticulated in less permissive settings. Cross-cultural comparisons underscore how rigid heteronormative expectations constrain fluidity's visibility. In conservative societies, same-sex behaviors frequently occur without corresponding identity shifts or public acknowledgment as fluidity, as individuals prioritize social to avoid ; for example, categories like "men who have with men" (MSM) capture episodic acts detached from any orientation label, reflecting norms that decouple behavior from enduring . Empirical data from such contexts indicate lower rates of self-reported fluidity compared to liberal societies, where normative encouragement of exploration correlates with higher incidence of identity transitions, though underlying behavioral plasticity may remain comparable. Generational trends in Western nations provide a temporal proxy for evolving norms, with surveys documenting sharp rises in non-heterosexual identification among youth amid cultural liberalization. A 2025 Gallup poll reported U.S. LGBTQ+ identification at 9.3%, driven primarily by bisexual labels among those aged 18-29, a cohort exposed to expansive media and educational narratives framing sexuality as malleable. Experimental research supports a causal link, showing that exposure to theories portraying orientation as continuous and changeable prompts heterosexual participants to endorse more inclusive self-assessments of attractions. Political liberalism further intersects, as adherents to fluid worldviews report higher alignment between values and sexual experimentation, contrasting with conservative emphases on stability that may reinforce fixed identities. These patterns suggest norms not only permit but can incentivize fluidity through social reinforcement, though longitudinal stability data temper claims of wholesale transformation by highlighting persistence in core attractions amid label changes.

Role of Ideological and Political Narratives

Ideological narratives, particularly those rooted in progressive frameworks such as , frame as a socially constructed spectrum rather than a fixed biological trait, encouraging individuals to view attractions as potentially malleable and subject to exploration. This perspective posits that rigid categories like exclusive limit personal authenticity, promoting fluidity as a normative aspect of . In contrast, conservative narratives often emphasize essentialist views of orientation as innate and stable, aligning with and cautioning against socially induced reinterpretations of attractions. These competing framings influence not only public discourse but also individual self-perception, with suggesting that exposure to fluid-oriented narratives can alter reported orientations. Experimental studies demonstrate that ideological messaging directly impacts self-reports of sexual attractions. In a 2021 randomized experiment published in Scientific Reports, participants exposed to descriptions of as continuous or —common in progressive academic and activist —subsequently reported less exclusive heterosexual attractions compared to those presented with categorical or fixed models, with effects persisting after a one-week delay. Similarly, a replication in 2024 confirmed that such non-traditional theories prompt heterosexuals to embrace broader orientation labels, indicating that narrative priming can induce perceived fluidity independent of underlying attractions. These findings highlight causal influence from , though long-term behavioral changes remain unestablished. Large-scale survey data further reveal correlations between liberal ideology and elevated reports of fluidity or non-heterosexual identity. Analysis of (GSS) responses from 2008 to 2021 shows LGBT identification among very liberal young adults rising from 11% to 34%, versus 3% to 9% among conservatives or moderates, a pattern driven largely by women adopting bisexual or fluid labels without corresponding same-sex behavior. For example, by 2021, 57% of female bisexual respondents reported exclusively male partners, up sharply from prior decades, suggesting ideological encouragement of identity exploration over experiential consistency. Gallup polls corroborate this, documenting LGBT identification at 21% for (born 1997–2012), predominantly liberal cohorts, exceeding behavioral rates and aligning with cultural shifts emphasizing fluidity. Such disparities raise questions about whether ideological narratives amplify genuine fluidity or foster performative identities, particularly in environments with reduced stigma for non-normative labels. While peer-reviewed research often originates from institutions predisposed to fluid models—potentially inflating supportive findings—nationally representative data like GSS mitigate selection biases, underscoring narrative-driven reporting as a key driver of observed trends. Conservative critiques, drawing on essentialist , argue that overemphasis on fluidity pathologizes stable , though empirical support for orientation change remains contested beyond situational contexts. Overall, political ideologies thus modulate the visibility and interpretation of sexual fluidity, with progressive dominance in media and education correlating to higher endorsement rates.

Criticisms and Debates

Methodological Limitations and Biases

Studies on sexual fluidity have commonly employed non-probability and convenience samples, such as those drawn from university students or sexual minority networks, which overrepresent younger, female, and individuals while underrepresenting heterosexual males, racial/ethnic minorities, and populations from conservative cultural contexts. This sampling approach introduces , inflating reported fluidity rates and limiting inferences about prevalence in the general population, as evidenced by variability in estimates ranging from 3% to 37% across studies depending on sample composition. Measurement inconsistencies further confound results, with many investigations assessing only a single dimension of —such as self-identified labels or attractions—while omitting behaviors, fantasies, or physiological responses, leading to incomplete characterizations of change. Self-report methodologies, predominant in this field, are vulnerable to recall errors, social desirability pressures, and definitional ambiguity, where participants may reinterpret past experiences under evolving personal or societal norms rather than reflecting genuine shifts in orientation. Longitudinal designs, though valuable for tracking change, are scarce and typically span short intervals (e.g., 1-10 years), failing to capture fluidity across diverse timescales or life stages, while high attrition rates retained samples toward more stable or engaged respondents. Cross-sectional snapshots, common due to constraints, conflate snapshots of dynamic processes with of stability or , precluding causal attributions and overreliant on potentially unrepresentative national surveys like the U.S. . Biases in interpretation arise from the field's embedding within social sciences institutions exhibiting systemic left-leaning ideological skews, which may favor sociocultural explanations emphasizing environmental malleability over biological stability, as critiqued in analyses of and sexuality . Such environments often prioritize samples amenable to fluidity narratives, downplaying contradictory data on orientation (e.g., in males) and attributing discrepancies to rather than innate factors, thereby compromising interpretive neutrality. Research consistently identifies associations between sexual fluidity—defined as changes in self-reported sexual orientation or attractions over time—and elevated risks of adverse mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and suicidality, relative to those with stable sexual orientations. A 2022 review of longitudinal studies concluded that fluidity correlates with greater depression and poorer overall health metrics, potentially due to identity-related stress or underlying psychological factors, though causation remains unestablished. Similarly, analyses of adolescent cohorts have shown that sexual minority youth experiencing identity fluidity report significantly higher depressive symptoms compared to those with consistent identities, with odds ratios indicating up to twofold increases in symptom severity. These patterns hold across genders but appear more pronounced in females, who exhibit higher baseline fluidity rates. Suicidal ideation and behaviors also demonstrate disparities linked to fluidity. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), spanning early to middle adulthood, revealed that individuals reporting sexual orientation changes had elevated odds of suicidal thoughts (adjusted OR = 1.5–2.0) and attempts compared to those with stable orientations, independent of baseline minority status. This aligns with findings from UK longitudinal surveys, where fluidity predicted increased psychological distress over multiple waves, contributing to persistent mental health gaps even after controlling for demographics and prior symptoms. Bisexual individuals, who often report higher fluidity than monosexual gay/lesbian counterparts, exhibit the most pronounced disparities: meta-analyses of population-based studies document 1.5–3 times higher prevalence of depression and anxiety diagnoses among bisexuals versus exclusive same-sex attracted individuals. These outcome disparities extend beyond acute symptoms to chronic trajectories and functional impairments. Longitudinal tracking of young adults indicates that fluidity-related identity management stress mediates up to 20–30% of variance in depressive episodes, suggesting iterative identity shifts exacerbate rumination and interpersonal challenges. However, not all studies find uniform effects; a 2022 analysis of female cohorts reported no broad link between identity change and distress when fluidity was volitional and adaptive, though such cases were minority outliers amid predominantly negative associations. Explanations invoking minority stress—such as or societal invalidation—appear in some literature, yet empirical controls for these factors do not fully attenuate the fluidity-distress link, pointing to potential intrinsic contributors like neurodevelopmental instability. Overall, these patterns underscore higher vulnerability to decrements among fluid individuals, informing targeted interventions focused on identity stabilization rather than affirmation of flux.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10289116/
  2. https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/60/4/1257/381063/Sexual-Fluidity-Implications-for-Population
  3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2022.2060927
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22302504/
  5. https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual%2520Fluidity%2520in%2520Males%2520and%2520Females.pdf
  6. https://psychology.ucsd.edu/_files/Diamond-Alley-Dickenson-Blair-2019.pdf
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X22002184
  8. https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual%20Fluidity%20in%20Males%20and%20Females.pdf
  9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27873031/
  10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21584828/
  11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35412933/
  13. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-63328-001
  14. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2823%2900549-9/fulltext
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/
  16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2021.1879721
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3296090/
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15482445/
  19. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x
  20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681990500238802
  21. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/psp-pspp0000077.pdf
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5003731/
  23. https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/15/4/447/5838126
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5766543/
  25. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z
  26. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000762
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3746322/
  28. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02005-9
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3081371/
  30. https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1153.pdf
  31. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2022.2060927/
  32. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03226-y
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277011189_Category-specificity_and_sexual_concordance_The_stability_of_sex_differences_in_sexual_arousal_patterns
  34. https://www.psypost.org/genital-responses-to-erotic-videos-remain-the-same-even-when-reports-of-sexual-orientation-have-changed/
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221803231_Prevalence_and_Stability_of_Self-Reported_Sexual_Orientation_Identity_During_Young_Adulthood
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S269994042500044X
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18194000/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6534354/
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4036458/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27631975/
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerulf-Rieger/publication/221803231/links/02e7e5326ddac8f1ad000000/Prevalence-and-Stability-of-Self-Reported-Sexual-Orientation-Identity-During-Young-Adulthood.pdf
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3215279/
  43. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2003631117
  44. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-19851-002
  45. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681990500238802
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16371143/
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17380375/
  48. https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/22/1/57/7906528
  49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0063-z
  50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.10.006
  51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-1795-9
  52. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-0063-z
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23430085/
  54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9761-1
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10289118/
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38095580/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1449332/
  58. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
  59. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222
  60. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-rises.aspx
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94479-9
  62. https://home.watson.brown.edu/news/2016-10-26/new-study-finds-sexual-behaviors-align-political-values
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8368213/
  64. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1339&context=jepson-faculty-publications
  65. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-32405-001
  66. https://gss.norc.org/
  67. https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
  68. https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19C38.pdf
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38944417/
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
  71. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2823%2900318-X/fulltext
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9874312/
  73. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13811118.2024.2445244
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625006070
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5603307/
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2017.1387755
  77. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00221465221086335
  78. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/2025-feb-bisexual-mental-health.html
  79. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/sgd0000306
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.