4.4 Review

Mostly heterosexual as a distinct sexual orientation group: A systematic review of the empirical evidence

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 58-88

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2013.01.001

Keywords

Mostly heterosexual; Sexual orientation; Heterosexual; Bisexual; Sexual continuum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We reviewed empirical evidence regarding whether mostly heterosexual exists as a sexual orientation distinct from two adjacent groups on a sexual continuum-exclusively heterosexual and substantially bisexual. We addressed the question: Do mostly heterosexuals show a unique profile of sexual and romantic characteristics that distinguishes them as a separate sexual orientation group? We found sufficient data in four areas to support an affirmative answer. Individuals who acknowledged a mostly heterosexual orientation were distinct from adjacent sexual orientation groups in having a small degree of same-sex sexual and/or romantic attraction and, occasionally, same-sex behavior; constituted a substantial prevalence in the population; were relatively stable in their orientation over time; and reported that this sexual identity was subjectively meaningful to them. Findings suggested that self-identification as mostly heterosexual or an acknowledgment of slight same-sex sexuality increases during the teenage years, peaks around the early twenties (somewhat sooner for men than women), and remains relatively high during young adulthood. Limited evidence suggested that prevalence is lower among older participants. These findings have implications for our conceptualization of sexual orientation as a continuum, the nature of sex differences in sexuality, developmental changes in sexuality, biologically based assessments of sexual orientation, and an etiological theory of mostly heterosexuality. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available