Literature Review
( updated 11/06/02)
Traditional sex-roles in our culture encountered a break down with the sexual revolution and the woman’s movement in the 1970s. The emergence of homosexual people and their lifestyles became more and more prevalent in our society, yet the failure to address many of their issues gave rise to stereotypic views. Homosexual women were often perceived as masculine looking and acting, with an occupation in a male dominated industry. Contrary to this image, their lovers were often feminine in appearance and behavior – the stereotypical lesbian relationship had the masculine and feminine elements of traditional relationships. However, how true are these stereotypes? And if these stereotypes are true, what attracts these women to each other? Answering the latter question is an important step in understanding and clarifying lesbian myths. For the purpose of clarity and quicker comprehension of information, in this paper the term “sex-role” will henceforth be replaced with “gender-role”. This is to prevent confusion between sex-role identification and sexual sex-role identification.
Along with the changing views on traditional gender-roles, the previously conceptualized bipolarity of masculinity and femininity was given another dimension when Bem (1974) argued that persons could express both masculine and feminine attributes and that it existed on a continuum. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was developed as a measure of the individual’s gender-role. From this, three typologies of possible gender-role outcomes, androgynous, feminine and masculine were introduced. Spence and Helmreich (1978) further expanded this idea with the addition of undifferentiated as a potential gender-role outcome. These concepts were subsequently incorporated in many of the studies conducted on gender-role identification and sexual orientation.
With reference to the typologies, Heilbrun and Thompson (1977) showed that masculinity was the critical gender-role outcome for lesbians in a study on gender-role identity. Only twenty percent of the participants studied had no masculine component in their gender-role identity. Similarly, a study done by Oldham, Farnill and Ball (1982) found that a sample of lesbians had higher degrees of masculinity than a heterosexual control group. However, there was no significant difference with respect to femininity between both groups, suggesting that lesbians are more adaptable in their sexual roles. These results were in part, consistent with Jones, Chernovetz and Hansson’s (1978) findings. Jones and colleagues demonstrated that both females and males with a primary masculine orientation are more likely to possess flexibility and adaptability as characteristics. They attempted to account for that by suggesting adaptability was a function of stereotypical male traits such as assertiveness, decisiveness and intellectuality. All these studies reviewed so far support the image of the masculine homosexual woman.
The question “what causes homosexuality?” thus arises. Heilbrun & Thompson (1977) hypothesized that the degree to which lesbians identify with their parents as well as their parent’s appropriateness as gender-role models influence their gender-role outcome. They found that masculine, low role consistent girls who mainly identified with the father were highly competitive with males. Jones, et. al (1978) also suggested that stereotypically masculine behaviors such as strength, rationality and assertiveness were more rewarded in society. The coupling of both findings hence constructs a possible motivational explanation for homosexuality.
According to the “exotic becomes erotic” (EBE) developmental theory of sexual orientation, people become erotically attracted to the peer group they felt most different from during childhood (Bem, 1996). The theory proposed that childhood temperaments are coded in the child from birth. These temperaments predisposes the child to either gender typical or gender atypical activities and playmate preferences. Gender non-conforming children would eventually come to feel different from their same-sex peers and will then view them as dissimilar and exotic. Often, these gender non-conforming children are mocked or ostracized by their same-sex peers, leading to heightened autonomic arousal. From there, the arousal is transformed into erotic or romantic attraction. Bem utilized a study by Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981) to support this theory, stating that childhood gender conformity or nonconformity was the only significant childhood predictor of later sexual orientation.
Judging from this, we would come to expect that lesbian women are more likely to prefer partners that are feminine in appearance. Laner (1978) researched the personal advertisements of lesbian women and found that the majority of them solicited androgynous partners. In fact, ninety-one percent of them made no mention of sex-role preference. The majority of lesbian women were showed to actually object adherence to sex-roles (Clingman and Fowler, 1976). This may be due to lesbians being more versatile in their sexual behaviors. The higher level of masculinity and androgyny shown in Oldham, et al (1982) also suggests that lesbians have more role flexibility.
Bailey and colleagues, (1997) conducted a series of studies to determine the partner preferences of homosexual people. In the first study they conducted, they found that lesbian women seeking partners through personal advertisements were more likely to request for gender-typical partners. However in the second study, no preference was shown for gender-typical partners. This discrepancy was resolved in the third study, where it was shown that lesbians prefer partners that are feminine in appearance, regardless of the behavior of the partner. Masculine looking partners were discriminated against, although masculine acting partners were not. These findings are generally consistent with the EBE theory.
Perhaps a possible reason why lesbians accept partners with masculine behavior is that there is a general bias in our society towards masculine traits. Feinman (1981) demonstrated that male-role behavior was more highly approved than female-role behavior for both males and females. It was also suggested that there were benefits for females that performed both male and female-role behavior. This was because such females satisfy both female role behavior expectations and person role. This status characteristic approach could also account for why it is generally more acceptable for women to be lesbians than men to be homosexuals.
An interesting exception in Bailey, et al (1997) was that women who described themselves as masculine were more likely to request masculine partners. This may in part be due to the well supported theory that similarity promotes interpersonal attraction (Murstein, 1972). Furthermore, by separating sexual and non-sexual descriptors, they also found that lesbians were more likely to advertise a masculine sexual role and equally likely to request for a partner with a masculine or feminine role. It appears that where sex-roles are concerned, compatibility has a higher priority than attraction. This contradictory finding creates an interesting question to the partner preferences of lesbian women.
Marecek, Finn and Cardell (1983) proposed that in heterosexual couples, gender provides a basis for allocation of gender-roles. However in homosexual couples, there is no such basis for gender-role distinction. These suggestions were in part attributable to Marecek and collegues’ findings that individual lesbian women were less gender-role identified than individuals in heterosexual relationships (Cardell, Finn and Marecek, 1981). Lesbian women’s sexual gender-role identification was also unpredictable from their global sex-role identification.
Rosenzweig and Lebow (1992) hypothesized that there would be a difference between global and sexual situational gender-role self perception in lesbians. They also hypothesized that gender-roles outcomes could influence the level of sexual satisfaction in intimate lesbian relationships. They measured the global and sexual situational gender-role self perception as well as sexual satisfaction. Their findings partially confirmed their hypothesizes. They found that apart from lesbians who perceived themselves as feminine, all other gender-role groups changed their gender-role self perception with the situation. There was a general tendency for the other gender-role groups to increase femininity in the sexual context.
It was suggested that this could be due to the influence of gender-role socialization – appropriate sexual behaviors for women is passive, gentle and sensitive. Another possible explanation is that stereotypic female characteristics do indeed increase sexual and relational satisfaction, regardless of sexual orientation or gender. Lesbians who perceived themselves as androgynous as well as those who perceived themselves as feminine in the sexual situation had a higher level of sexual satisfaction than lesbians who perceived themselves as undifferentiated. It was suggested that the predictor of sexual satisfaction would thus be the level of femininity and not androgyny. This could be because in a lesbian relationship, when a high level of femininity is not balanced by a similar level of masculinity, there is possibly a lower level of sexual activity initiation.
The aforementioned findings pose many interesting possibilities in research on lesbians. It has been noted that in many of these studies, many of the lesbians studied have masculine attributes, despite feminine lesbians being the more desired partners. This is somewhat consistent with the stereotypical view of lesbian women. Also, many studies have focused on the general gender-role perception of the individual, and their partner preferences. Despite this, very little has been done on the perception of lesbian individuals on their partner’s gender-role. Specifically, would masculine and feminine lesbians differ from each other in their perception of their lover’s gender-roles?
Furthermore, what is attributable to feminine lesbian’s sexual orientation? Bem (1996) explains that although many feminine lesbians were not significantly gender nonconforming in childhood, they were still more likely than heterosexual women to have had mostly male friends in grade school, a very important part of the EBE process. However, what about those feminine lesbians that have a preference for masculine lesbians? It appears inconsistent with the EBE theory but it is very possible that masculine lesbians may be viewed as an exotic species by themselves. Feminine lesbians could be attracted to the masculine attributes of their preferred partners, yet still believing that these masculine lesbians possess the ‘sensitive’ characteristics of their natural sex (gender-role socialization).
This study proposes that feminine lesbians who primarily date masculine lesbians will be more likely than masculine lesbians who mainly date masculine lesbians to perceive their partners as the masculine gender-role, both in a global and sexual situational sense. It is hoped that these findings may help shed light and facilitate understanding of lesbian gender-roles and attraction in lesbian relationships.
References
Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y, Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997), Butch femme or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 960 – 973.
Bem, D. R. (1996), Exotic becomes Erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation, Psychological Review, 103(2), 320 – 335.
Bem, S. (1974), The Measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155 – 162.
Cardell M., Finn S., Marecek, J. (1981), Sex-role identity, sex-role behavior and satisfaction in heterosexual, lesbian and gay male couples, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(3), 488 – 494.
Clingman, J. and Fowler, M. G. (1976), Gender roles and human sexuality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 40(3), 276 – 284.
Feinman, S. (1981), Why is cross sex role behavior more approved for girls than for boys? A status characteristic approach, Sex Roles, 7(3), 289 – 300.
Heibrun, A. B. and Thompson, N. L. (1977), Sex Role identity and male and female homosexuality, Sex Roles, 3, 65 – 79.
Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. E. and Hansson, R. O. (1978), The enigma of androgyny: Differential Implications for males and females? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(2), 298 – 313.
Laner, M. R. (1978), Media mating II: “Personals” advertisements of lesbian women, Journal of Homosexuality, 4(1), 41 – 61.
Marecek, J., Finn, S. E., and Cardell, M. (1983), Gender roles in the relationships of lesbians and gay men, Journal of Homosexuality, 8(2), 45 – 49.
Murstein, B. I. (1972), Physical attractiveness and marital choice, Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 8 – 12.
Oldham, S., Farnill, D. & Ball, I. (1982), Sex role identity of female homosexuals, Journal of Homosexuality, 8(1), 41 – 46.
Rosenzweig, J. M. and Lebow, W. C. (1992), Femme on the streets, butch in the sheets? Lesbian sex-roles, dyadic adjustment and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Homosexuality, 23(3), 1 – 20.
Spence, J. T. and Helmreich, R. (1978), Masculinity and femininity: Their
psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.