Research regarding women's sexuality presented to the American Sociological Association this week has caused controversy in the queer and academic worlds. While the premise of the study, that "women's sexuality may be more flexible and adaptive than men's," is not in itself novel, the evidence presented to back up the claim is that "attractive and educated women may be more likely to say they are '100% heterosexual.'"

 

The idea put forth by Dr. Elizabeth Aura McClintock of Notre Dame is that attractive women are "initially successful in partnering with men" early in life, and are therefore more likely to never explore alternative sexual identities. If women's sexuality is fluid, then their identity will allegedly be shaped more by experience and context. In this case, the experience and context is the allegedly vastly greater success attractive women have with men. "However, women with the same sexual attractions, but less favorable heterosexual options might have greater opportunity to experiment with same-sex partners.”

 

The methodology of the study has been called into question by experts such as Dr. Qazi Rahman at King's College London. The dataset used relies solely on self-report, however there are other, more objective means of measuring sexuality and attraction that should be used in future studies along the same subject matter.

 

As can be imagined, the implications that straight women are prettier than queer women, and that women who identify on the queer spectrum are more desperate have blown social media up with both rage and poingant humor. One commenter on The Independent highlighted the limitations of relying solely on self-reported data, remarking, "as a gay woman, I can confirm that all the 100% heterosexual women I've slept with have been smoking hot." Another caustic reply on Facebook reminded everyone that "statistically speaking, unattractive and unsuccessful women are more likely to be straight."

 

Dr. McClintock has clarified her statement that labeling sexual identity as a social construct is not the same as "suggesting that same-sex unions are a second-best option to heterosexual unions." 

 

She further explained: “I do not think that women are strategically selecting an advantageous sexual identity or that they can 'choose' whether they find men, women, or both sexually attractive. Rather, social context and romantic experience might influence how they perceive and label their sexual identity.”