See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321142804

Are Women Sexually Fluid? The Nature of Female Same-Sex Attraction and Its
Evolutionary Origins

Article  in  Evolutionary Psychological Science · June 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s40806-017-0128-2

CITATIONS READS

6 1,392

1 author:

Menelaos Apostolou
University of Nicosia
142 PUBLICATIONS   1,787 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Unfolding ageism: A comparative study among the two military-divided ethnic communities in Cyprus View project

In-law preferences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Menelaos Apostolou on 20 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Evolutionary Psychological Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0128-2
THEORETICAL ARTICLE
Are Women Sexually Fluid? The Nature of Female Same-Sex
Attraction and Its Evolutionary Origins
Menelaos Apostolou 1
# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017
Abstract The notion that female sexuality is fluid, meaning
that women can experience attractions for either men or wom-
en depending on the circumstances, has been widely accepted
by the academic community. Accordingly, scholars have
attempted to develop evolutionary models that could explain
why selection forces have favored sexual fluidity in women.
The present paper reviews longitudinal studies on sexual at-
traction which indicate that the great majority of women do
not have a fluid sexuality, but have instead stable attractions
over time. Moreover, the current paper reviews studies on
arousal, in order to demonstrate that they indicate a weak
correlation between sexual arousal and sexual attraction in
women, and not that women are attracted to both sexes. The
evolutionary implications of the findings on female sexuality
are further explored.
Keywords Sexual fluidity . Same-sex attraction .
Homosexuality . Sexual arousal
Introduction
Same-sex attraction is evolutionary puzzling: People who are
attracted to members of the same sex are expected to suffer
costs in their reproductive success, since they divert their lim-
ited resources toward outlets that cannot lead to child-bearing.
On this basis, we would expect that strong negative selection
pressures would remove from the gene pool any dispositions
* Menelaos Apostolou
m.apostolou@gmail.com
1
Department of Social Sciences, University of Nicosia, 46
Makedonitissas Ave, 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus
for same-sex attraction. Yet, this did not happen, with a con-
siderable proportion of the population experiencing varying
degrees of same-sex attraction (Dickson et al. 2013; LeVay
2010; Ott et al. 2011). In turn, the relative high prevalence of
these dispositions in the population gave rise to much theoriz-
ing on their evolutionary origins (Bailey et al. 2016).
This theorizing focused predominantly on male same-sex
attraction (LeVay 2010); yet, same-sex attraction is more com-
mon in women than in men (Calzo et al. 2017; Savin-Williams
et al. 2012). Discovering the reasons for the high prevalence
of same-sex attraction in women constitutes a major challenge
for evolutionary scholars. For any such attempts to be fruitful,
we first need to make clear what these attempts have to ex-
plain. Romantic and sexual attractions to opposite or same-sex
individuals were seen as stable over time (LeVay 2010), a
position which has been challenged (Baumeister 2000;
Diamond 2008b). The purpose of the current paper is to re-
view several lines of evidence in order to examine the nature
of female same-sex attraction.
Sexual Fluidity
Sexual orientation is usually seen as an enduring pattern or
disposition to experience sexual or romantic attractions to-
ward people of the same sex, the other sex, or both sexes
(Institute of Medicine 2011). This definition reflects the, until
recently, prevailing position that sexual orientation is an early
determined, stable trait that is highly resistant to change (Bell
et al. 1981; Ellis and Ames 1987; Haldeman 1991; Money
1987). This position is supported by evidence from different
lines of research, including conversion therapy outcome stud-
ies which, document very low success rates in treatment at-
tempts to alter sexual orientation (Haldeman 1991, 1994), and
studies suggesting a developmental continuity between

gender-atypical behavior in childhood and later adult homo-
sexuality (Bailey and Zucker 1995).
However, in her influential book “Sexual fluidity:
Understanding women’s love and desire,” Diamond (2008b)
suggested that women are sexually fluid: “Sexual fluidity sim-
ply means situation-dependent flexibility in women’s sexual
responsiveness. This flexibility makes it possible for some
women to experience attraction for either men or women un-
der certain circumstances, regardless of their overall sexual
orientation. In other words, although women -like men - ap-
pear to be born with distinct sexual orientations, these orien-
tations are not the sole determining factor of their sexual at-
tractions, and experiences. Instead, women of all orientations
may experience variation in their erotic and affectional feel-
ings as they encounter different situations, relationships, and
life stages” (Diamond 2008b, p.3).
In this argument, women may undergo major changes in
their sexual attractions, meaning that for instance, they may be
attracted to women in one period and to men in a subsequent
period. Diamond based her conclusions on a study that
employed a sample of young non-heterosexual women and
found that over a period of several years many of the partici-
pants in her sample changed their sexual identities from “les-
bian,” to “bisexual,” to “heterosexual” and back again
(Diamond 2008a). Accordingly, a label of “lesbian,” “bisexu-
al,” or “heterosexual” may not be appropriate to describe these
women and their sexuality may be better described.
The works of Diamond and other scholars (e.g., D’Augelli
and Patterson 1995; Baumeister 2000) has led the academic
community to the wide acceptance that the nature of female
sexuality is fluid (Kuhle and Radtke 2013). The question
arises, however, whether empirical studies on sexual orienta-
tion support the hypothesis of sexual fluidity. In a recent paper,
Diamond (2016) reviewed several studies and concluded that
there is support for the argument of sexual fluidity.
The first line of evidence she reviewed was studies on
sexual orientation. These studies indicated that attractions to
members of the same sex were more common in men than in
women, and she interpreted this difference as evidence in
favor of the sexual fluidity hypothesis. Yet, such difference
could be the result of women being more fluid than men or
from the fact that there are more women than men who have
enduring attractions toward members of the same sex.
Therefore, this sex difference is not evidence in favor of the
sexual fluidity hypothesis. The second line of evidence she
reviewed, referred to discrepancies between attraction and be-
havior. Across these studies, heterosexually identified women
were more likely to report same-sex behavior than heterosex-
ually identified men. Diamond argued that this sex difference
constituted also evidence in support of the sexual fluidity ar-
gument, as sexual fluidity gives individuals a broad range of
behavior options, depending on their circumstances. Still, as
Diamond acknowledges, there are other explanations for this
Evolutionary Psychological Science
sex difference, such as the higher stigma ascribed to male than
to female same-sex sexual contact, which in turn makes men
less likely to engage or to report that they have engaged in it.
The most important evidence in support or lack of support
for the sexual fluidity hypothesis comes from longitudinal
studies on same-sex attraction. If the attractions of women
are fluid, then women would experience changes in these
attractions over time that would be detected by longitudinal
studies. Diamond reviewed indeed some of these studies, but
she focused on the data for non-heterosexual participants
without taking into consideration data from heterosexual par-
ticipants. The evidence she reviewed indicated that a consid-
erable proportion of non-heterosexual women exhibited
changes in their attractions over time. But, since the vast ma-
jority of individuals are heterosexuals, this is not evidence in
favor of sexual fluidity in women, but evidence that non-
heterosexual women may exhibit fluidity in their attractions.
We believe that there are sufficient longitudinal studies
which can provide a solid answer to the question of whether
women’s attractions are fluid. The next section will review
these studies and examine whether the main predictions
derived from the sexual fluidity hypothesis hold.
Subsequently, it will examine the implication for
evolutionary theorizing.
Longitudinal Studies on Sexual Attraction
In the sexual fluidity hypothesis, women have the capacity to
be attracted to both sexes. Accordingly, in their lifetime, most
women would have experienced attractions to both sexes,
which in turn, lead to the prediction that when women are
explicitly asked about their attractions, they would be unlikely
to report that they are attracted exclusively to one sex. That is
to say, the majority of women are not expected to see them-
selves as exclusively heterosexual. Furthermore, in this hy-
pothesis, women are expected to experience considerable
changes in their sexual attractions; they may for instance, in
one period experience no or weak attraction to women, and in
a different period strong attraction to women. In turn, this
argument leads to the prediction that a substantial proportion
of women would report changes in sexual attractions over
time. Both predictions can be tested on evidence from studies
which have examined how the attractions of women change
over time.
Small Scale Studies
Weinberg et al. (1994) assessed changes in sexual attractions
over a 5-year interval using a sample of 55 non-heterosexual
individuals, comprising of people who were active partici-
pants in San Francisco’s newly emergent bisexual community
in the early 1980s. They found that about two thirds of their
Evolutionary Psychological Science
respondents indicated changes in their self-reported ratio of
same-sex to other-sex attractions over this 5-year period,
whereas 85% indicated changes in their ratio of same-sex to
other-sex sexual behavior. About half of these changes were
toward the same sex and about 60% were 1-Kinsey point in
magnitude (Kinsey scale ratings on a 0 to 6 scale, with 0
representing exclusive attraction to the opposite sex and 6
representing exclusive attraction to the same sex, see Kinsey
et al. 1953).
Another study examined changes in self-identification
among 156 gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths (Rosario et al.
2006). Over a 1-year period, 57% of the youths remained
consistently self-identified as gay/lesbian, 18% transited from
bisexual to gay/lesbian, and 15% consistently identified as
bisexual. This study found also that, in contrary to the hypoth-
esis that females are more sexually fluid than males, female
youths were less likely to change identities than male youths.
Diamond studied a sample of 79 non-heterosexual women
(i.e., women who identified as lesbian, bisexual, and unla-
beled) over a period of 10 years (Diamond 2008a).
Participants were assessed five times during this period, and
it was found that 32% of women changed identities from T1 to
T2, 25% from T2 to T3, 30% from T3 to T4, and 28% from T4
to T5. By the 10-year point, 67% of women had changed their
identities at least once since T1, and 36% had changed iden-
tities more than once.
These studies were limited by the small samples of non-
heterosexual participants. In particular, prevalence studies in-
dicate that about 5% of women have a bisexual or homosexual
orientation (Bailey et al. 2016; LeVay 2010; Yougov report
2015); therefore, by drawing small samples from this 5% it is
not possible to draw conclusions for the 95% of women who
differ specifically from the 5% in the dimension of interest.
Thus, if more solid conclusions about female sexuality are to
be reached, studies that include also heterosexual women are
necessary.
Accordingly, one study collected 18-month follow-up data
from 175 lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women
(Pattatucci and Hamer 1995). The authors employed the
Kinsey scale to measure same-sex attraction. Over the 18-
month assessment period, they found that about 80% of the
sample did not change their ratings, and those who did,
changed their ratings typically by one point. This was, how-
ever, a small scale study, while the follow-up period was rel-
atively short.
Overall, studies of non-heterosexual women found consid-
erable change in women’s sexual attractions over time, but
when heterosexual women were included in the sample, sex-
ual attractions appeared to be much more stable. Still, all the
studies above were based on small and non-representative
samples, while only one study employed heterosexual wom-
en. Thus, in order to reach more solid conclusions about the
nature of female sexuality, larger scale studies which will
include representative samples of both heterosexual and
non-heterosexual women, are necessary.
Large Scale Studies
Dickson et al. (2013), employed a cohort of 1037 participants
born in Dunedin, New Zealand, between 1 April 1972 and 31
March 1973 (Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and
Development Study) in order to examine stability in attrac-
tions. Participants completed questions on sexual orientation
at the age 21, 26, 32, and 38. As we can see from Table 1,
across the different time periods, about 85% of women indi-
cated exclusive attraction toward men. The most common
form of same-sex attraction was to be predominantly attracted
to men and occasionally to women with a prevalence rate of
11% across the different time periods.
Stability of attraction was measured in three waves, name-
ly, from 21 to 26 (wave 1), from 26 to 32 (wave 2), and from
32 to 38 years of age (wave 3). As we can see from Table 2,
about 16% changed their responses in the first two waves, and
about 12% changed their responses in wave 3. Those who
indicated an attraction only to the opposite sex, indicated also
a high stability, with about 11% changing the responses in
wave 1 and less than 10% changing their responses in waves
2 and 3. The authors did not estimate stability for each form of
same-sex attraction, but instead for broader forms of same-sex
attraction. Thus, we can see that for forms of same-sex attrac-
tion between exclusive toward men and exclusive toward
women, about 60% of participants changed their answers in
each wave. For exclusive attraction to women, the change was
50% in the first two waves and 0% in the third wave. We
cannot reach any solid conclusions for stability of exclusive
same-sex attraction, as there were less than five women in this
category.
Another study examined reports of sexual orientation sta-
bility over a 10-year period drawing on data from the National
Survey of Midlife Development in the USA (Mock and
Eibach 2012) which included 2560 individuals. Sexual attrac-
tion was measured twice, once at the beginning of the study
(wave 1) and 10 years later (wave 2) with responses of yes or
no to the options “heterosexual (sexually attracted only to the
opposite sex),” “homosexual (sexually attracted only to your
own sex),” and “bisexual (sexually attracted to both men and
women).” As we can see from Table 1, the vast majority of the
1370 female participants indicated that they were heterosexu-
al. It needs to be said that this study was limited by not con-
sidering heterosexual orientation with same-sex attraction,
which is in high prevalence rate in women. Thus, women
who were exclusively heterosexuals, as well as those who
were heterosexuals and experienced also same-sex attractions,
had to respond that they were heterosexuals.
With respect to stability between the two waves, less than
3% of women changed their responses (Table 1).
 Evolutionary Psychological Science

No attraction (%)
Heterosexual orientation was the most stable, since less than

Missing (%)
2% of female participants who indicated to be heterosexuals in
wave 1 changed their answers in wave 2. However, more than
60% of those who indicated that they were homosexuals or
4.7
2.8
1.6
0.8

2.9
0.1
0.2

0.9
1.1
0.4
bisexuals in wave 1 changed their responses in wave 2.
Moving on, the Growing Up Today Study (GUTS) is a

100% homosexual (%)

longitudinal cohort study of male and female adolescents liv-

Only to same (%)

ing throughout the USA (Field et al. 1999). Self-identified
sexual orientation was assessed biannually, and participants
Unsure (%)

were asked to select one from several response options that

best described their feelings. As we can see from Table 1, from

0.4
0.9
5.4
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.3

0.4

0.9
0.9
0.7
a total of 7964 women, more than 80% identified as exclu-
sively heterosexual (Calzo et al. 2017). The most common

Mostly homosexual (%)

More often to same (%)

type of same-sex attraction was heterosexual with same-sex

attractions which ranged from about 4% in the younger cohort
to 15% in the older cohort.
Lesbian (%)

For this sample, across four waves, Ott et al. (2011) esti-
mated that for the women who were at the age of 12–17 when
sexual attraction was first measured, about 23% changed their
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.9
1.4

0.7
0.4
0.4
0.2
0

reported attraction, and for those who were at the age of 18–
21, about 21% changed their reported attraction (Table 2). It
About equally to both (%)

was also estimated that across the four waves, at some point
10% of males and 20% of females described themselves as
Homosexual (%)

mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, or

Bisexual (%)

Bisexual (%)

completely homosexual, while 2%of both males and females

reported ever being “unsure” of their orientation.
Savin-Williams et al. (2012) analyzed data for 12,287 men
0.4

1.7
1.8

0.8
1.2

2.6
2.3
2.4
2.4

0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1

and women from a longitudinal study of a nationally repre-

sentative sample of American individuals (National
More often to opposite (%)

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health). In wave 3, where

Mostly heterosexual (%)

Mostly heterosexual (%)

participants were between the ages of 18 and 24, about 85% of

the 6556 women indicated that they were 100% heterosexuals,
while in wave 4, where the participants’ age ranged from 24 to
Bisexual (%)

34, about 80% of women identified that they were 100% het-
erosexuals. The most common form of same-sex attraction
10.8
15.8
14.5
12.3
3.7
5.4
8.4
9.9

1.2
1.5
7.1

9.4
12
15

was heterosexual with same-sex attractions, with about 11%

Estimates of different types of attraction across studies

of women in wave 3 and 16% in wave 4 belonging to this

category.
Completely heterosexual (%)

With respect to stability of attraction, in Table 2 we can see

Only to opposite sex (%)

100% heterosexual (%)

that, from wave 3 to wave 4, about 18% of women changed

Type of attraction

Heterosexual (%)

their responses. Exclusive heterosexual attraction was mostly

stable: About 12% who indicated that they were exclusive
heterosexuals in wave 3 changed their answers in wave 4.
When we moved away from exclusive heterosexual orienta-
97.4

85.6
80.2
85.8
89.6
87.7
86.7
84.2
80.7

88.3
82.5
84.2
87.6

98

tion, the stability of responses fell considerably, with about

one in two women who indicated that they were heterosexual
Savin-Williams et al. 2012

with same-sex attraction and about 60% of women who indi-

Mock and Eibach 2012

cated that they were bisexuals to change their answers be-

Dickson et al. 2013

tween waves. This percentage fell to about 27% for homosex-

Calzo et al. 2017

ual women; yet, some caution is necessary in interpreting this

Ages 12–13
Ages 14–15
Ages 16–17
Ages 18–19
Ages 20–21
Ages 22–23

result as only 64 women belonged to this category.

Table 1

Studies

Wave 4
Wave 1
Wave 2

Wave 3
Age 21
Age 26
Age 32
Age 38

Furthermore, in wave 3, participants were asked to answer

the question “Have you ever had a romantic attraction to
Evolutionary Psychological Science

Table 2 Estimates of stability of attraction across studies

Studies

Ott et al. 2011 Change in attraction (%)

Younger cohort 22.9
Older cohort 20.6
Dickson et al. 2013 Change in attraction (%) Initially only opposite (%) Initially mixed (%) Initially only same (%)
Wave 1 16.1 11.5 60.5 50
Wave 2 16.3 7.6 58.9 50
Wave 3 11.8 4.2 58.1 0
Change in attraction Heterosexual Bisexual Homosexual
Mock and Eibach 2012
Waves 1 to 2 2.6% 1.4% 64.7% 63.6%
Change in attraction Heterosexual Mostly heterosexual Bisexual Homosexual
Savin-Williams et al. 2012
Waves 3 to 4 17.8% 11.8% 47.2% 59.9% 26.6%

women?”, whereas in wave 4, this question changed to “Are results are consistent with the results of the longitudinal stud-
you romantically attracted to women?” Across the two waves, ies: Heterosexual women, during their lifetime recalled high
87.5% of women answered “no” and 12.5% answered “yes” stability in their attractions, but non-heterosexual women
(Kanazawa 2017). recalled considerable less stability.

Retrospective Evidence Further Considerations

The conclusions of the longitudinal studies are supported also
by evidence from a retrospective study which asked partici-
pants to recall the stability of their attractions. More specifi-
cally, Kinnish et al. (2005) recruited a sample of 762 individ-
uals who had different sexual orientations and they were
35 years old or more. Participants were asked to provide in-
formation in three dimensions of sexual orientation (sexual
fantasy, romantic attraction, sexual behavior) for 5-year pe-
riods beginning with age 16–20 (i.e., age 16–20, 21–25).
Participants’ responses were measured using a 7-point
Kinsey scale. Participants were also asked to indicate their
sexual orientation in each period using a categorical scale
(i.e., heterosexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian, or other).
With respect to the Kinsey scale responses, 51% of current-
ly self-identified heterosexual, 1.5% of bisexual, and 9% of
lesbian women reported no change ever for any dimension of
orientation. In addition, 86% of heterosexual, 9% of bisexual,
and 20% of lesbian women reported no more than a cumula-
tive one point shift in any dimension over their entire adult
lives.
Finally, with respect to the categorical sexual orientation
scale, 3% of currently self-identified heterosexual, 77% bisex-
ual women, and 64% of lesbian women reported one or more
transitions in categorical sexual identity.
This retrospective study suffers from memory biases,
meaning that part of the reported fluidity or stability may
reflect inaccurate memories rather than actual shifts or stabil-
ity of attractions. Even in the presence of such biases, the
On the basis of the finding of large scale longitudinal studies,
we can attempt to estimate how many women are expected to
exhibit some degree of sexual fluidity. To begin with, we
averaged the percentages of women who indicated that they
were attracted exclusively to men in the studies presented in
Table 1. In our analysis, we did not include the Mock and
Eibach (2012) study, because it did not distinguish between
exclusive and not completely exclusive attraction to the oppo-
site sex. Our estimate was 84.7%; accordingly, we can say that
84.7 out of 100 women are expected to be attracted exclusive-
ly to men. In order to find out how stable their attractions are
expected to be, we averaged the percentages of change report-
ed in Table 2 and we found 17.6%, which can be interpreted
that out of 84.7 heterosexual women, 14.9 (84.7 × 0.176) are
expected to experience change in their attractions.
In the same vein, 15.3% (100–84.7) are expected to expe-
rience some degree of same sex attraction. In order to find out
how stable their attractions are expected to be, we averaged
the percentages of change reported in Table 2 for all forms of
same-sex attraction. We did not include the attraction to same-
sex ratings from the Dickson et al. (2013) study, because of the
very few observations in this category. Our estimation was
51.8%, which means that out of 15.3 women who are not
exclusively heterosexual, 7.9 (15.3 × 0.518) are expected to
experience changes in their attractions. Please note that, for
simplicity, we did not weight our estimations for each type of
same-sex attraction. In particular, mostly opposite-sex attrac-
tion with same-sex attraction is more common than exclusive

same-sex attraction. Yet, because the stability rates for each
category appear to be very similar (see Table 2), this simplifi-
cation is reasonable.
Putting everything together, we would expect that out of
100 women, 22.8 (14.9 + 7.9) would experience some degree
of change in their attractions. Although, exclusive attraction to
the opposite sex is much more stable than the different types
of same-sex attraction, most women who will exhibit fluidity,
will come from the exclusive attraction to the opposite-sex
category, because this is by far the largest one. We need to
say that, some of the studies on which we based our estima-
tions were not representative of the population, and not all age
groups were represented, while each study had its own biases
and limitations. It is unlikely however, that our estimations are
far from the true ones. Thus, we can say that, about 77% of
sexually mature women would experience stability and about
23% would experience fluidity in their attractions. These es-
timations indicate that the female sexuality cannot be charac-
terized as fluid since the great majority of women do not
experience changes in their attractions.
In addition, there are reasons to believe that the 23% who
experiences sexual fluidity constitutes an overestimate. More
specifically, Dickson et al. (2003), for the Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study sample, com-
pared women’s responses when they were 21 years old to their
responses when they were 26 years old. They found that 84.4%
of women did not indicate any change in their sexuality. From
the remaining 15.6% who did, most (65.6%) changed their
response from “being attracted only to the opposite sex” to
“be attracted to the opposite sex but occasionally to the same
sex.” The next biggest change (21.9%) was from “being
attracted to the opposite sex but occasionally to the same sex”
to “only to the opposite sex.” Similarly, Savin-Williams et al.
(2012) estimated that responses between wave 3 and wave 4
and found that 17.8% percent of women did experience change
in their attractions. The majority of those who changed their
response (52%) moved from being attracted only to individuals
of the opposite sex to being attracted mainly to individuals of
the opposite sex. The second biggest change was from being
attracted mainly to individuals of the opposite sex to being
attracted only to individuals of the opposite sex (23.8%).
Thus, it seems that the majority of those who changed their
responses, moved from being attracted exclusively to the op-
posite sex to being attracted predominantly to the opposite sex
but occasionally to the same sex. This change, however, may
not reflect an actual change in sexual attraction but the effect
of maturity and experience. More specifically, younger indi-
viduals are less experienced and thus, less likely to be fully
aware of their sexuality. In this scenario, sexual attraction may
not have changed, but people have become more aware of it. It
may also be the case that younger individuals are shyer and
more reluctant than older ones to report their same-sex attrac-
tions, even if they are aware that they have them.
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Furthermore, in both studies, the second biggest change
was from being attracted predominantly to the opposite sex
to be attracted exclusively to the opposite sex. This finding
may also not reflect a genuine change in sexual attraction, but
a better understanding of one’s sexuality that develops with
age. For instance, individuals may have had some same-sex
experiences out of curiosity or experimentation or after being
prompted by a non-heterosexual individual. These experi-
ences may have enabled participants to say that their attrac-
tions were mostly heterosexual when they were initially
assessed, but as they aged, they may have come to realize that
such response did not reflect their actual sexual attractions, so
they altered their answers to exclusively heterosexual. As in
the previous case, in this scenario sexual attraction did not
undergo any change, but people became more aware of it.
Consistent with the argument about maturity and experience
effects, from Table 1 we can see that Calzo et al. (2017) esti-
mated how the response for “unsure” about sexuality changed
with age. We can observe a sharp decline from more than 5%
in the 12–13 to 0.3% in the 22–23 age group.
It needs to be considered also that people’s responses may
be affected by factors such as religious believes and religios-
ity. For instance, individuals may have experienced a traumat-
ic event, such as the death of a relative that has turned them
more religious. In many religious dogmas, such as
Christianity, same sex attraction is not approved (Boswell
1980), so people who become more religious may actively
attempt to suppress their attractions and be less willing to
report them. Thus, longitudinal studies may detect a change
in attraction, from some type of same-sex attraction to exclu-
sive opposite-sex attraction, which however, is not real. In this
sense, change in religiosity may inflate sexual fluidity rates.
On the other hand, people who are very religious may refuse
to acknowledge any changes in their attractions, and always
declare that they are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.
In this respect, religiosity may deflate the true rate of fluidity.
The current literature does not allow us to distinguish be-
tween a genuine change in attraction and maturity, experience,
and other effects. Although there are reasons to believe that
the fluidity rates found in longitudinal studies are probably
overestimates, it is reasonable to say that a considerable pro-
portion of non-heterosexual women experience genuine shifts
in their attractions.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The existing literature provides valuable evidence for the na-
ture of female sexuality. We need to take into consideration
nevertheless, that it has some limitations. In particular, there
are few large scale longitudinal studies on sexual attraction
which are confined to Western cultures. Accordingly, research
on female sexuality would benefit from additional studies in
different cultural settings. We consider it unlikely that such
Evolutionary Psychological Science
research would produce considerably different results, but
some variation is expected. One reason is that attitudes toward
same-sex attraction vary across cultural contexts (Fone 2000;
LeVay 2010), which is likely to affect participants’ willing-
ness to report their same-sex attractions.
The longitudinal studies reviewed in this paper, measured
sexual attractions in time intervals which ranged from several
months to several years. Other research methods could also be
employed in order to investigate stability in attractions. For
instance, a recent study has attempted to examine the day-to-
day stability of women’s and men’s same-sex and other-sex
attractions over a 30-day period using a non-probability sam-
ple of 294 heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and
women (Diamond et al. 2017). Participants used online daily
diaries to report the intensity of each day’s strongest same-sex
and other-sex attraction.
It was found that women’s attractions showed less day-to-
day stability than men’s, and interpreted this as evidence to be
consistent with the notion of female sexual fluidity. Yet, there
may be different explanations for this finding. Women, may
for instance, experience higher variation in their day-to-day
libido than men which reflects on their response patterns.
Women are also less emotionally stable than men (Costa
et al. 2001; Lynn and Martin 1997), which may affect their
responses related to sexual attraction. Therefore, the sex dif-
ference in stability of attraction may not reflect differences in
sexual fluidity but differences in libido or personality traits
between the sexes. Future work needs to replicate this study,
by keeping these factors constant.
Moreover, when assessing the evidence from the current
literature, one may ask how big a change in participants’
responses should be in order to indicate a substantial change
to sexual attraction. For instance, a one point change in the
seven-point Kinsey scale may be interpreted by some
scholars as indicating random noise between measurements
rather than a genuine change in attraction. Other scholars
could interpret this change to be a true shift in sexual attrac-
tion—people may have genuinely become more or less
attracted to the same-sex. This is an issue that predominant-
ly affects studies which have employed interval or Likert
scales, and it is less of a problem for studies that have
employed nominal scales in order to measure sexual attrac-
tion (e.g., heterosexual, homosexual). The reason is that, in
the latter case, individuals classify themselves to different
categories, and the distinctions are more clear-cut to reflect
a random error. For instance, an individual who answered in
one case “2” and in the other “3″” may not have experienced
any true change in her attractions, but a woman who an-
swered “Exclusive heterosexual” and subsequently
“Heterosexual with same-sex attractions” has most likely
experienced some change in her attractions.
Last but not least, as discussed above, most studies did not
consider factors such as religiosity or a better understanding of
one’s sexuality that comes with age, so their estimates of flu-
idity and stability suffer from biases. Future studies need to
attempt to identify and control such confounding variables, in
order to estimate more accurately the prevalence of sexual
fluidity.
In summary, longitudinal studies on sexual attraction do
not support the predictions derived from the sexual fluidity
hypothesis: Most women do not experience attractions to both
sexes, while most women’s attractions are stable over time.
We will discuss next whether the argument for sexual fluidity
is supported by evidence from research on sexual arousal.
Sexual Arousal Versus Sexual Attraction
Research on sexual arousal has produced evidence that
may be interpreted as supportive of the sexual fluidity hy-
pothesis. More specifically, studies on sexual arousal have
found that most men are genitally aroused to one sex that is
consistent with their reported sexual attractions, but
women’s reported sexual attractions are weakly reflected
in their genital responses because they are sexually aroused
to both sexes (Bossio et al. 2014; Bouchard et al. 2017;
Chivers et al. 2014; Chivers et al. 2004; Chivers et al.
2007; Huberman and Chivers 2015; Rieger et al. 2005).
These findings were replicated with measures other than
genital arousal, including pupil dilation while viewing sex-
ual stimuli (Rieger et al. 2015; Rieger and Savin-Williams
2012), reaction time (Wright and Adams 1994; Wright and
Adams 1999), and viewing time (Ebsworth and Lalumière
2012; Lippa 2012; Lippa 2013).
To discuss one recent study, Rieger et al. (2015) recruited a
sample of 76 men and 72 women, and asked them to indicate
their sexual attractions and fantasies toward men and women
on a Kinsey-type scale. Subsequently, participants were asked
to watch short videos depicting a naked person in a bedroom
masturbating. The researchers recorded participants’ genital
responses and pupil dilation in response to this stimulus.
They found that both physiological measures indicated that,
on average, women of all sexual orientations were physiolog-
ically aroused by both male and female stimuli.
In the sexual fluidity hypothesis, women’s sexual attrac-
tions are situation dependent, so that woman may experience
attractions to both men and women. This being the case, wom-
en are expected to be aroused by both sexes, which is what is
found in the existing studies. Yet, the arrow of causality does
not go the other way round as well. That is, if women are
aroused by both men and women, it does not mean that they
are attracted to both men and women. As a matter of fact, the
studies above demonstrated that women’s arousal patterns did
not predict their sexual attractions. Most women who experi-
enced arousal in the presence of both male and female sexual
stimuli explicitly indicated that they were attracted only to

men. It needs to be said also that women who were attracted
predominantly to women, typically showed more sexual re-
sponse to female than male sexual cues.
The finding that women are aroused by both male and
female sexual stimuli is frequently misinterpreted to mean that
most women are attracted also to other women, although it
only means that the sexual arousal and sexual attraction in
women are weakly correlated. For instance, the British news-
paper “The Independent,” reported the results of a study on
arousal (i.e., Rieger et al. 2016) in an article entitled “Women
are never straight - they are either gay or bisexual, study sug-
gests” (Osborne S. 2015). However, this research investigated
the relationship between masculine and feminine behaviors
and sexual arousal, and its findings do not support in any
way the conclusion that women are never straight.
One argument that can be put forward is that studies on
sexual attraction rely on self-report measures, and considering
that same-sex attraction is a sensitive matter with discrimina-
tion and stigma associated to it (Fone 2000), participants may
intentionally or unintentionally provide biased answers. On
the other hand, studies on sexual arousal employ measures
which are usually outside individuals’ conscious control, and
may be therefore, more objective in measuring sexual attrac-
tion. For instance, pupils that dilate to stimuli indicate activa-
tion of the autonomic nervous system (Bradley et al. 2008;
Lang and Bradley 2010), which is associated with many au-
tomatic processes such as perspiration, digestion, blood pres-
sure, and heart rate (ten Donkelaar et al. 2011).
In this line of argumentation, the reason for the weak asso-
ciation between attraction and arousal is that women experi-
ence attraction and arousal to both sexes, but they underreport
the former and cannot be dishonest about the latter. If this is
correct, we would expect the same pattern to be observed in
men; actually, because male same-sex attraction is stigmatized
more than female same-sex attraction (Fone 2000), we would
expect this pattern to be more pronounced in men than in
women. But this is not what has been found. Men’s sexual
arousal was strongly correlated with their attractions, i.e., men
were aroused by what they indicate as desirable (Chivers et al.
2014; Huberman and Chivers 2015). Accordingly, the argu-
ment that sexual arousal studies provide a better measure for
sexual attraction is unlikely to hold (see also Chivers 2017).
Exploring the evolutionary origins of this finding can shed
further light to the phenomenon of weak correlation between
attraction and arousal. In particular, it has been argued that
women may have evolved to be sexually responsive in sexual
context-dependent situations in order to avoid genital injury
(Rieger et al. 2016). More specifically, there are reasons to
believe that forced copulation has been present during most
of the period of human evolution (Thornhill and Thornhill
1983 see also Apostolou 2013). Forced copulation can lead
to genital trauma (Slaughter et al. 1997); therefore, the female
response to any sexual stimuli could have evolved in part to
Evolutionary Psychological Science
mitigate this risk. Accordingly, women may have physiolog-
ical sexual responses to a variety of sexual stimuli, including
stimuli representing both consensual and forced sexual acts,
sexual activities of nonhuman primates, and male and female
sexual stimuli (Rieger et al. 2016).
Not all available data support an ultimate explanation of
female sexual arousal (Dawson et al. 2015), but irrespectively
of the ultimate reason, what the data support is that the
women’s attractions and sexual arousal are weakly connected.
Therefore, a stimulus that causes arousal to women does not
necessary cause them sexual attraction. Accordingly, this line
of research provides a wealth of evidence that enable us to
understand female sexuality, but this evidence does not sup-
port or contradict the sexual fluidity hypothesis.
What Evolutionary Scholars Need to Explain?
Having adopted the hypothesis of sexual fluidity, evolutionary
scholars have attempted to explain why selection forces have
favored such fluidity in women. More specifically, Kuhle and
Radtke (2013) argued that such fluidity potentially enabled
women to secure help from other women in raising their chil-
dren. Kanazawa (2017) argued that sexual fluidity benefited
women who married polygynously as it reduced conflict with
other women (but see Apostolou 2017). Yet, these hypotheses
need to be revised in the light of evidence discussed in the
sections above which indicates that the vast majority of wom-
en experience stable and not fluid attractions.
The evidence reviewed in this work indicates that the ma-
jority of women are exclusively attracted to men, with their
attraction being stable over time. This evidence is consistent
with evolutionary framework which proposes that mecha-
nisms, including the ones regulating attraction, have evolved
to enable individuals to gain access to the reproductive capac-
ity of the opposite sex, and as such it does not require addi-
tional explaining. However, the literature reviewed indicates
also that a significant proportion of women are not exclusively
attracted to men, while their same-sex attractions are not al-
ways stable over time. This evidence seems inconsistent with
the evolutionary reasoning as it appears to decrease women’s
capacity to gain access to the opposite sex. Accordingly, evo-
lutionary scholars have the challenge to explain why a consid-
erable proportion of women exhibit attractions toward other
women, and why such attractions are not always stable over
time.
As sexual fluidity could potentially give flexibility to sex-
ual response, the question arises why selection forces did not
favor this trait in women. One reason is that fluidity could be
potentially very costly in terms of fitness. More specifically,
sexually fluid women may spend considerable time periods
being attracted to members of the same-sex, which would
place them in a disadvantageous position in relation to women
Evolutionary Psychological Science
who are consistently attracted exclusively or predominantly to
men, and thus, would divert their mating effort toward outlets
from which children can be born.
The longitudinal studies reviewed in this paper suggest that
women who are not exclusively heterosexual exhibit consid-
erable shifts in their attractions. The relative fluidity of same-
sex attraction in women constitutes also a clue of its origins,
and needs to be integrated in future theorizing. One possibility
is that selection forces have favored fluid instead of stable
same-sex attraction in women. In this respect, fluid same-sex
attraction provided a stronger advantage in ancestral women
than stable same-sex attraction.
Another possibility is that the relative instability that same-
sex attraction exhibits is evidence that it has not been selected,
but it is an outcome of weak negative selection pressures in
ancestral human societies (Apostolou 2016). In such case,
both mutant alleles that predispose for stable and unstable or
fluid sexual orientation would remain in the gene pool. To put
it differently, in the weak selection pressures scenario, the
stability of same-sex attraction is of little consequence, since
it does not serve a function so one type (stable/fluid) is not
selected over another. In effect, both variations are expected to
be present in the population.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that mutant alleles that
predisposed for fluid same-sex attraction may have experi-
enced weaker negative selection than mutant alleles that
predisposed for stable same-sex attraction. If we assume that
any form of female same-sex attraction has negative fitness
effects, and through mutation, two alleles arise that predispose
for same-sex attraction in women. The allele A predisposes for
fluid same-sex attraction, while the allele B for stable same-
sex attraction. A woman who carries the A, as opposed to a
woman who carries the B, would be likely to spend periods of
time during which she is not attracted at all to other women
but only to men. In this respect, the negative selection pres-
sures exercised on the A would be weaker than the ones
exercised on the B, which in turn would lead to a higher
frequency of the A in the gene pool, and thus, a higher fluidity
of same-sex attraction.
One problem with the weak selection pressures hypothesis
is that weak negative selection pressures may not be adequate
to explain the high prevalence of same-sex attraction in wom-
en, and positive selection needs to be invoked (Gavrilets and
Rice 2006). Accordingly, it has been argued that, one reason
that has driven same-sex attraction in women in relatively
high prevalence is male choice (Apostolou et al. 2017). Men
who have as partners women who are attracted also to women,
may face lower risk of cuckoldry as their partners can divert
their sexual urges toward other women instead toward other
men. Also, men can benefit by the same-sex attractions of
their opposite-sex partners, as they can provide them with
access to additional women. Evidence from two independent
studies indicated that a considerable proportion of
heterosexual men found same-sex attraction desirable in
women (Apostolou et al. 2017). Analysis of men’s preferences
indicated further that these men preferred heterosexual with
same-sex attractions and not bisexual or homosexual women
as partners. Thus, male choice would favor stable same-sex
attraction manifested in heterosexual women rather than flu-
idity that would result in women experiencing attractions
which are not desirable to men.
The observed prevalence rates of same-sex attraction in
women are likely to have been the outcome of a combination
of weak negative and positive selection pressures.
Predispositions for stable and fluid same-sex attractions may
have experienced weak negative selection pressures in ances-
tral human societies, predominantly due the regulation of mat-
ing. Such pressures would allow for a relative high prevalence
rate of same-sex attraction, especially for fluid same-sex at-
traction. If a large proportion of men preferred same-sex at-
traction in heterosexual women, then alleles that predisposed
for stable same-sex attraction in heterosexual women may
have experienced positive selection and would be then in a
relatively high frequency in the population. The combination
of these two factors is likely to have resulted in a relative high
frequency of same-sex attraction in the population, with many
women experiencing stable and many women experiencing
fluid attraction to the same sex.
In order to develop these arguments further, we need to
examine what triggers change in same-sex attractions. More
specifically, individual can experience changes in their attrac-
tions in a stochastic manner, or as a response to specific envi-
ronmental triggers. If such changes are random, fluidity has
probably no specific function and is the outcome of weak
selection pressures. If, on the other hand, changes in attraction
are the outcome of specific environmental triggers, this effect
could be interpreted as evidence of positive selection on sex-
ual fluidity. Identifying the causes of change is a major chal-
lenge for future research.
At this stage, the arguments above should be considered as
theoretical possibilities, and much more theoretical and em-
pirical work is necessary in order to understand the evolution-
ary origins of same-sex attraction in women.
Conclusions
Having a good understanding of female attractions and their
stability is a necessary step toward understanding their evolu-
tionary origins. Despite its limitations, the existing literature
does not support the claim that women have a fluid sexuality.
Instead, it indicates that the majority of women have stable
sexual and romantic attractions. Yet, a considerable proportion
of women experience attractions to other women, and a con-
siderable proportion of these women experience also fluidity,
meaning that their attractions change over time. At present, it

remains unclear why selection forces have allowed or favored
same-sex attraction in women, and why some women have
stable and others fluid same-sex attractions. Evolutionary
scholars need to employ the findings of the current literature
on attraction in order to form solid theories that would enable
us to understand the evolutionary origins of the same-sex at-
traction in women.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Apostolou, M. (2013). The evolution of rape: the fitness benefits and
costs of a forced-sex mating strategy in an evolutionary context.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 484–490.
Apostolou, M. (2016). The evolution of female same-sex attractions: the
weak selection pressures hypothesis. Evolutionary Behavioral
Sciences, 10, 270–283.
Apostolou, M. (2017). Why sexual plasticity in women is unlikely to be
an adaptation to reduce conflict in polygynous marriages. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 46, 329–330.
Apostolou, M., Shialos, M., Khalil, M., & Paschali, M. (2017). The
evolution of female same-sex attraction: the male choice hypothesis.
Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 372–378.
Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and
sexual orientation: a conceptual analysis and quantitative review.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55.
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E.,
& Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and sci-
ence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17, 45–101.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: the fe-
male sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 347–374.
Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual
preference: its development in men and women. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Bossio, J. A., Suschinsky, K. D., Puts, D. A., & Chivers, M. L. (2014).
Does menstrual cycle phase influence the gender specificity of het-
erosexual women’s genital and subjective sexual arousal? Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 43, 941–952.
Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance and homosexuality: gay
people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to
the fourteenth century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bouchard, K. N., Chivers, M. L., & Pukal, C. F. (2017). Effects of genital
response measurement device and stimulus characteristics on sexual
concordance in women. The Journal of Sex Research. Advance
Online Publication.
Bradley, M. M., Miccoli, L., Escrig, M. A., & Lang, P. J. (2008). The
pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation.
Psychophysiology, 45, 602–607.
Calzo, J. P., Masyn, K. E., Austin, S. B., Jun, H. J., & Corliss, H. L.
(2017). Developmental latent patterns of identification as mostly
heterosexual vs. lesbian, gay or bisexual. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 27, 246–253.
Chivers, M. L. (2017). The specificity of women’s sexual response and its
relationship with sexual orientations: a review and ten hypotheses.
Archives of Sexual Behavior. Advance Online Publication.
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E. M., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex
difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological
Science, 15, 736–744.
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual
orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus
gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 1108–1121.
Chivers, M. L., Roy, C., Grimbos, T., Cantor, J. M., & Seto, M. C. (2014).
Specificity of sexual arousal for sexual activities in men and women
with conventional and masochistic sexual interests. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 43, 931–940.
Costa Jr., P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences
in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual
identities over the lifespan: psychological perspectives. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dawson, S. J., Sawatsky, M. L., & Lalumière, M. L. (2015). Assessment
of introital lubrication. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1527–1535.
Diamond, L. M. (2008a). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adult-
hood: results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 5–14.
Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love
and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, L. M. (2016). Sexual fluidity in male and females. Current
Sexual Health Reports, 8, 249–256.
Diamond, L. M., Dickenson, J. A., & Blair, K. L. (2017). Stability of
sexual attractions across different timescales: the roles of bisexuality
and gender. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 193–204.
Dickson, N., Paul, C., & Herbison, P. (2003). Same-sex attraction in a
birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood. Social
Science and Medicine, 56, 1607–1615.
Dickson, N., van Roode, T., Cameron, C., & Paul, C. (2013). Stability and
change in same-sex attraction, experience, and identity by sex and age in
a New Zealand birth cohort. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 753–763.
ten Donkelaar, H. J., Němcová, V., Lammens, M., Overeem, S., &
Keyser, A. (2011). The Autonomic Nervous System. Clinical
Neuroanatomy.
Ebsworth, M., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Viewing time as a measure of
bisexual sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 161–172.
Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual
orientation: a theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 233–258.
Field, A. E., Camargo, C. A., Taylor, C. B., Berkey, C. S., Frazier, L.,
Gillman, M. W., et al. (1999). Overweight, weight concerns, and
bulimic behaviors among girls and boys. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 754–760.
Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. New York: Picador.
Gavrilets, S., & Rice, W. R. (2006). Genetic models of homosexuality:
Generating testable predictions. Proceeding of the Royal Society B,
273, 3031–3038.
Haldeman, D. C. (1991). Sexual conversion therapy for gay men and
lesbians: a scientific examination. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D.
Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public
policy (pp. 149–160). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haldeman, D. C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation
conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
62, 221–227.
Huberman, J. S., & Chivers, M. L. (2015). Examining gender specificity
of sexual response with concurrent thermography and plethysmog-
raphy. Psychophysiology, 52, 1382–1395.
Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender people: building a foundation for better understanding.
Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
Kanazawa, S. (2017). Possible evolutionary origins of human female
sexual fluidity. Biological Reviews, 92, 1251–1274.
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Sex differences
in the flexibility of sexual orientation: a multidimensional retrospec-
tive assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 173–183.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual be-
havior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kuhle, B. X., & Radtke, S. (2013). Born both ways: the alloparenting
hypothesis for sexual fluidity in women. Evolutionary Psychology,
11, 304–323.
Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain.
Biological Psychology, 84, 437–450.
LeVay, S. (2010). Gay, straight, and the reason why: the science of sexual
orientation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lippa, R. A. (2012). Effects of sex and sexual orientation on self-reported
attraction and viewing times to images of men and women: testing
for category specificity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 149–160.
Lippa, R. A. (2013). Men and women with bisexual identities show
bisexual patterns of sexual attraction to male and female “swimsuit
models”. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 187–196.
Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender differences in extraversion, neu-
roticism, and psychoticism in 37 nations. Journal of Social
Psychology, 137, 369–373.
Mock, S. E., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Stability and change in sexual
orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 41, 641–648.
Money, J. (1987). Sin, sickness, or status? Homosexual gender identity and
psychoneuroendrocrinology. American Psychologist, 43, 384–399.
Ott, M. Q., Corliss, H. L., Wypij, D., Rosario, M., & Austin, S. B. (2011).
Stability and change in self-reported sexual orientation identity in
young people: application of mobility metrics. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 519–532.
Osborne, S. Women are never straight—they are either gay or bisexual,
study suggests. (2015, November, 5). Retrieved from: http://www.
independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-never-straight-
they-are-either-gay-or-bisexual-study-suggests-a6723276.html.
Pattatucci, A. M. L., & Hamer, D. H. (1995). Development and familiality
of sexual orientation in females. Behavior Genetics, 25, 407–420.
View publication stats
Rieger, G., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). The eyes have it: sex and
sexual orientation differences in pupil dilation patterns. PLoS One,
7, e40256.
Rieger, G., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). Sexual arousal patterns
of bisexual men. Psychological Science, 16, 579–584.
Rieger, G., Cash, B. M., Merrill, S. M., Jones-Rounds, J., Dharmavaram,
S. M., & Savin Williams, R. C. (2015). Sexual arousal: the corre-
spondence of eyes and genitals. Biological Psychology, 104, 56–64.
Osborne, S. (2015) Women are never straight—they are either gay or
bisexual, study suggests. Retrieved from: http://www.independent.
co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-never-straight-they-are-either-
gay-or-bisexual-study-suggests-a6723276.html.
Rieger, G., Savin-Williams, R. C., Chivers, M. L. & Bailey, M. J. (2016).
Sexual arousal and masculinity-femininity of women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Advance Online Publication.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual
identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: con-
sistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46–58.
Savin-Williams, R. C., Joyner, K., & Rieger, G. (2012). Prevalence and
stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young
adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 103–110.
Slaughter, L., Brown, C. R. V., Crowley, S., & Peck, R. (1997). Patterns
of genital injury in female sexual assault victims. American Journal
of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 176, 609–616.
Thornhill, R., & Thornhill, N. W. (1983). Human rape: an evolutionary
analysis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 137–173.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction:
understanding bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wright Jr., L., & Adams, H. (1994). Assessment of sexual preference
using a choice reaction time task. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 16, 221–231.
Wright Jr., L. W., & Adams, H. E. (1999). The effects of stimuli that vary
in erotic content on cognitive processes. Journal of Sex Research,
36, 145–151.
YouGov report. (2015). Retrieved July 6, 2016, from https://
d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/
isqcugzp6d/tabs_OPI_Kinsey_Scale_20150813.pdf.