by Antonio Galarza
(01/04/06)
People continue to lump sexual, romantic, and even platonic feelings together under "sexual" orientation, when the reality is that each of the three is an independent variable. Males, in particular, have no problem separating sex from romance. For example, when a straight male says, "I'm not gay. I just like cocks in my mouth," what he means is that he is heteroromantic (straight in the romantic sense). In short, romantic orientation is what people mean by "sexual" orientation. Society, however, forces most males to fuse sex and romance and to divorce sex from friendship -- and especially, from same-sex friendship. Females, by contrast, need no forcing, as they seem to fuse and to divorce these things naturally.
To all appearances, 70% to 80% of the male population is bisexual, heteroromantic, and homoplatonic. (Homoplatonic means being drawn to homosocial bonds -- e.g., straight men hanging out together, with no sex involved.) Furthermore, about 13.5% of the population is either exclusively or overwhelmingly homoromantic (gay in the romantic sense). Of this group, most members are, almost by definition, homosexual and heteroplatonic. (Heteroplatonic means being drawn to heterosocial bonds -- e.g., gay men being "good friends" with women, with no sex involved.) Some queers, in turn, are biromantic (bi in the romantic sense) and, almost by definition, bisexual. (Bisexual means being sexually attracted to males and to females.) A realistic theoretical breakdown of the percentages may look as follows:
| Romantic Orientation | Sexual Orientation | Platonic Orientation |
| 71% | Heteroromantic | 79.5% | Bisexual | 71% | Homoplatonic |
| 15% | Biromantic | 10% | Heterosexual | 15% | Biplatonic |
| 13.5% | Homoromantic | 10% | Homosexual | 13.5% | Heteroplatonic |
| .5% | Other | .5% | Other | .5% | Other |
Apparently, most males bring their romantic feelings for females when males interact sexually with them and bring their platonic feelings for males when males have sex with each other. The sex transforms these feelings (whether romantic or platonic) into stronger bonds between males and their sexual partners (whether males or females). This, in turn, has evolutionary benefits. Studies clearly are needed on this, but they will not be made until researchers start dissecting sexual, romantic, and platonic orientation as three independent variables.
Reading through the many advice columns on the Internet, I am disappointed that the so-called "experts" continue to talk about "heterosexuals," "bisexuals," and "homosexuals" when referring to the romantic feelings of these populations, and then dismiss the sexual feelings of bi-curious, straight-identified male readers as meaningless (or as "not meaning you're gay or bi") simply because it is gay sex, not gay romance, that these readers confess to being curious about. A typical reader comment would go something like, "I'm a straight guy not interested in other guys. But I like sucking cock. Am I gay?" The "expert" would then say something like, "Just because you enjoy gay sexual activity doesn't mean you're gay, or even bisexual. It is your emotional feelings that determine your sexual orientation. If you only like girls, then you're probably heterosexual." The problem with this exchange (so typical on the Internet and in scholarly journals) is that the terms remain vague. Things such as "like girls" would presumably mean in a romantic sense. But this is not made clear, and the purely sexual feelings/activities are dismissed as "not the real thing." Unfortunately, this approach belittles sex and raises romance as the real determinant of "sexual" orientation. For males, however, sex alone is as important as romance, and terms are simply lacking to allow them to make sense (to tear apart, if you will) these different elements of their lives, much less to name and to identify along different tiers of "orientation" -- in this case, sexual orientation vs. romantic orientation vs. platonic orientation.
It is the innate bisexuality of males that causes most straight-identified guys to fear anything gay. The label bisexual is rejected by "heterosexual" people -- and by straight males, in particular -- because they think that it means rejecting the opposite sex romantically. But one can be straight in the romantic sense and bisexual in the purely sexual sense -- at least, males can, who easily divorce sex from romance. One can also be gay in the romantic sense and bisexual in the purely hormonal sense. In other words, people can identify in more than one way if presented with new analytical concepts and multitiered orientation scales, such as the three-circle graph that reconceptualizes the Kinsey scale, found at ThreeCircleGraph.com.
North America and western Europe were way ahead in the 19th century, when males had the freedom -- and were even encouraged -- to form really intense friendships with other males. These friendships were often called romantic-friendships because they involved males holding hands, kissing, cuddling together, and talking about intimate matters. (Females formed these romantic-friendships, as well, with other females.) Then, "homosexuality" was discovered in the late-19th century, just as industrial capitalism really took off. Psychiatrists called the new deviants homosexuals, rather than homoromantics, because it was the sex -- rather than the nonsexual, same-sex romantic attachments that were already common -- that repelled these psychiatrists and the rest of society. Suddenly, males were rebuked as "homosexuals" for being physically tender with other males and were encouraged to be competitive and to distrust one another, this being needed in the more fiercely capitalistic world that was emerging. (Similarly, females were chastised as "lesbians" for being involved in same-sex romantic-friendships.) The ridiculousness of this is that today, most males are thought to be biologically programmed to be macho, to distrust one another, and to be "straight." But looking at the social order of 19th century North America and western Europe, one sees that romantic-friendships were quite natural. Sure, they lacked the sexual element, but everything else, from holding hands to sleeping together, was there.
The modern Western world can move back to this model. But this will require a radical shift in group consciousness. For starters, it will mean questioning the dominant paradigm of "sexual" orientation, of people being either "straight" or "gay," of sex and romance being the same thing (instead of independent variables that often come together), of gay sex having to be kept apart from homoplatonic bonds, and of males being biologically programmed to distrust one another and to be "straight" (instead of socially conditioned for that). With their frequent fusing of sexual and platonic relationships between males, gay men can offer a path back to the 19th-century model -- with sex sprinkled in. With their questioning of people being either "straight" or "gay," bisexuals can lead the mainstream toward new avenues of being.
The conservatives are right! Labels do matter, and how one identifies early in life, as far as "sexual" orientation, influences how one sees oneself in adulthood -- as straight, bi, gay, trans, etc. This self-image, in turn, influences what one allows oneself to fantasize about, what one allows oneself to do (and not do), and one's choice of friends. Let us hope that researchers, activists, and others start providing people with more options, through research and activism, as far as "sexual" orientation and how individuals are allowed to identify. Let us visualize this, for if enough people shift to a multitiered concept of "sexual" orientation, sexual politics in the future will be radically different from the queer movements of today, whole new fields of research will be expanding at the universities, and human relationships will be far more varied, self-aware, and satisfying.
