Can You Be Sexually Gay & Romantically Straight? ~ Lyla Cicero

Via on Dec 12, 2012
Photo: Shutterstock

A few months back it came out that actor John Travolta may have had sex with men.

Whatever the facts of the case, the blogosphere and my sex therapist circles were aflutter with speculation. What did this mean? Was John Travolta gay? Does sex with men necessarily mean gay?

The fascinating Good Men Project post “Mostly Straight Most of the Time” talks about men who identify as “mostly straight,” including men who feel politically or personally limited by the heterosexual male role, men who find other men attractive but primarily enjoy sex with women, and men who have romantic feelings or enjoy cuddling or going “beyond platonic” with other men, but not having sex. It also talks about men who have sex with other men, but still identify as “mostly straight.”

For example, the article quotes a man named Dillon who explains that “he resides in the ‘Sexual Netherlands,’ a place that exists between heterosexuality and bisexuality.”

So what is going on with these men? Are they gay, straight or bisexual? My answer to that question is that it is the wrong question. Rather than trying to squeeze people into existing labels, perhaps we should be making new labels. Can you be sexually gay and romantically straight, or as some of my colleagues described it, “homo-sexual and hetero-emotional? ” Of course!  You can be anything. That is what we keep missing. No matter how many categories we make, people will keep inhabiting “the Netherlands in between.”

I personally feel somewhat more sexually attracted to men than women, but still sexually attracted to women… perhaps in a different way? Affectionally or romantically, I think I might feel slightly more pull toward women than men, but still feel romantic toward men. Then again, there are men who are more like women and women who are more like men, and transgender folk, and genderqueer folk, and people who are cisgender, but don’t follow traditional gender roles. I could be sexually or affectionally drawn to any of them!

I tend to be most attracted to people who exhibit a combination of traditionally male and traditionally female traits, but still identify with a clear male or female gender identity, though in a subtle way. What does that make me? It makes me hard to label. I love the term pansexual because it separates gender from sexual orientation, allowing attraction to be more about other things. It also rejects the false dichotomy between sexual/romantic and platonic relationships. To me, pansexual takes into account the complexity of sexual and affectional orientation.

The currently accepted gay/straight dichotomy with bisexual in the middle presents the following limitations:

1. Gender as a concept is problematic.

In order to label your orientation based on gender, you have to be able to label everyone as a gender. Tricky and getting trickier!

2. Research is making it clearer and clearer that sexual orientation is fluid.

See the wonderful work of Lisa Diamond on fluidity. Sexual orientation changes over the lifespan way more than most of us realize.

3. Sexual orientation labels attempt to describe feelings and behaviors that exist along a spectrum as discrete entities with no gray area in between.

It’s as useful as calling everyone under four feet “short,” everyone between four and six feet “medium height,” and people over six feet “tall” and then asking each group to all wear the same size clothes. Of course there are people who fall in between straight and bisexual, in between bisexual and gay, etc. The “Mostly Straight, Most of the Time” piece states, “National surveys in the U.S. and Canada show that three to four percent of male teenagers, when given the choice to select a term that best describes their sexual feelings, desires, and behaviors, opt not for heterosexual, bisexual, or gay, but for ‘mostly’ or ‘predominantly’ heterosexual.”

4. Types of attraction also exist along a spectrum.

Relationships don’t fall neatly into platonic and romantic categories or sexual and non-sexual categories as easily as you would think, given our current labels. We can experience sexual feelings or sexual tension and not want to have sex. There are sensual aspects to almost all human interactions—including with our children, parents, and siblings, with close friends, bosses, or the person who delivers our mail. Sometimes the beginning of a new friendship can feel like a romance. A close friendship can include physical and emotional intimacy. Sometimes sex is just about getting off, sometimes much more. Some folks have primary and secondary romantic relationships, or more than one equally weighted relationship at a time.

I believe Kinsey had it right when he introduced the spectrum idea—that there is a spectrum between gay and straight.

What we need to add is just how many spectrums there are. It’s not just how gay or straight you are, it’s how gay or straight are you at a certain age, in a certain emotional state, with a certain person, in a sexual situation, a romantic situation, a sensual situation, when there is an emotional connection, or some combination of these. What are your romantic, sexual, sensual, emotional reactions to people with various types of gender expression? These questions can’t be answered with a simple gay or straight, or even “I’m a 6 out of 10.”

I’m not advocating we throw out the terms gay and straight. There are very important reasons to emphasize difference, even while seeking equality. Nuance is not politically expedient. Some of us are kind of like you some of the time and not like you some of the time, and you are probably more like us than you’d like to admit and we all change over time, so please allow us marriage equality.

This would make for a horrifically bad Human Rights Campaign slogan. It’s about as compelling as “Read my lips… no new taxes… unless the following 10 things happen.”

We are gay, we always want sex and romance with people of the same sex, we were born this way, we will always be this way is a much easier sell. Even some of us are right in between and like both males and females, which is a lot easier to sell than trying to explain that male and female may not even be that useful in assessing our level of interest in another person and doesn’tapply to a sizable and increasingly visible portion of the population.

For these reasons, there is a tendency among queer folk and allies to assume those who insist on identities like “mostly straight” or who operate on the “down low” are closeted and unwilling to be honest about their identities. Are there people who don’t use existing labels because they would rather shield themselves from the minority stress associated with being “out” as a sexual minority? Of course! But I believe there are also many folks (myself included) who have a sense that the gay/straight/bi categories don’t quite fit them.

So are these categories useless, then?

No, I don’t believe so. I believe many labels become stepping stones to other more nuanced ones. Without gay and straight we would never have had bisexual and transgender, and without those, we never would have come to pansexual, genderqueer, etc. How do we strike the right balance? How do we advocate for the queer community and build new notions of identity while also acknowledging that identity is complex and nuanced? And still explain that our labels are currently limited, but will keep growing?

Not easily. We are simultaneously shackled and set free by these labels. We need to be able to question and expand upon existing labels, acknowledging their limitations, without throwing them out all together or assuming the labels themselves are the problem. We need to be able to use them and question them and make room for new types of identities all at the same time.


Lyla Cicero has a doctorate in clinical psychology, with clinical interests in relationships, sexual minorities, and sex therapy.  Lyla is feminist, LGBTQIAPK-affirmative, sex-positive blogger at, where she focuses on expanding notions of identity beyond cultural limitations in the areas of gender, sexual orientation, motherhood, and sexuality. Follow her on twitter @UndrCvrNSuburbs.



Ed. Caroline Scherer


Like elephant Love on Facebook.

About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive—and get your name/business/fave non-profit on every page of Questions? info elephantjournal com


Loved it? Leave a tip!

(We use super-secure PayPal - but don't worry - you don't need an account with PayPal.)

16 Responses to “Can You Be Sexually Gay & Romantically Straight? ~ Lyla Cicero”

  1. Isabel says:

    Interesting article. What about people who feel a lot of love and affection for either sex, but not much sexual attraction for either one? Certainly with this very sexualized society, where sex is talked about often, and is headlined everywhere, this type of person would be made to feel that something is wrong. But what if nothing is wrong? Just curious…

  2. johnny says:

    'Sexual Netherlands' … hahaha!

  3. Kara says:

    Loved this post and appreciated the interesting (and rarely considered) points made. Thanks Lyla!

  4. chad says:

    Dr. Pepper Schwartz and her research partner Philip Blumstein at the University of Washington covered this topic exhaustively with roughly the same conclusions as discussed above WAY back in the 80's or earlier. Dr. Schwartz's books are fascinating. And from the gossip angle, those of us in the gay show biz community know that Travolta was pretty gay pretty much of the time in his early years–he, like Tom Cruise, apparently married as a result of his training in Scientology, but the scuttlebutt is that being married hasn't prevented him from staying sexually appreciative of other men. Hopefully we'll get to a cultural/social place pretty soon where the sex lives of stars get a "so what?" when they wander beyond heterosexual boundaries.

  5. […] Can You Be Sexually Gay and & Romantically Straight? ~ Lyla Cicero ( […]

  6. […] while I had a confused identity at times and even thought that Charlie Brown, Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph were pretty damn great […]

  7. […] Can You Be Sexually Gay and & Romantically Straight? ~ Lyla Cicero ( […]

  8. […] the relationship between the sexes is very different than it was 50 years ago, a fact I was reminded of while watching “Mad Men,” set in NYC in the ’60s. […]

  9. […] that should have been a clue to my orientation. Although I’ve learned since that romance and sex are not always tightly coupled (there are romantic asexuals), I have always had a hard time understanding what the point is of an […]

  10. […] the couples in mixed orientation marriages, who know the truth, that a gay person and a straight person can have an awesome […]

  11. Teresa says:

    Thank you very much for this article, it´s a breath of fresh air for me! I like the label "pansexual"…it´s the only one that I´ve seen that I genuinely identify with, and it´s not discussed very much in the gay community. Sometimes it´s oppressive in the lesbian community that any deviation from strict lesbianism is going to be met with harsh judgement…many women will not date "bisexuals" for fear that they all really want to be with a man in the end. It´s difficult to feel prejudice from both the hetero and homo worlds if you don´t fit into a nice neat box.

  12. Bailey says:

    This is a really great article, really eye opening and relevant. Thanks so much!

  13. Joseph says:

    I hate feminists. All it is now is just reverse roles, women should do this and men not, women should be in charge and men not. I am not a misogynist, I agree in equal rights, women should not have more power than men and vice versa. I support the early feminism or suffragettes in early 1900 England for the right to vote and again for the freedom to do others things that were considered to be mans work. The simple fact is that biologically the average man is faster, stronger and has higher stamina than the average woman, and women can possibly have higher natural intelligence, for gutting meat and cooking ,though actually men would have cooked, the women just gave birth while the men hunted. A lot has changed since those times, women are now more accepted and at times rather ravishing when they are trying to be pushy fucking Fema-Nazis who want to do what the want all the fucking time. Feminism is over, women are accepted now as people in most places like Norway, England, Parts of America and other places that are not so-called terrorists. Oh last thing why "Freedom Fighters" are fight freedom? (rhetorical question/Joke)

Leave a Reply