That's "pure queer" to you, mister

S2 and I had the pleasure of working on an assignment together this week. We critiqued a research article and co-authored a paper on how questionable we found the research.

We were looking at some research out of North Dakota -- sometimes location really is everything -- about the prevalence of non-heterosexuality in the general population. I could get into a whole bunch of details about how they collected their data, but that doesn't really matter so much as what they did with it after they got it.

Outliers -- responses that are on the extreme ends of the spectrum -- are commonly tossed out of data crunching, or are at least highlighted for further scrutiny. But in this particular research, more than 8 percent of the population sample was tossed out because the researchers couldn't get a grip on what they were finding.

Specificially, more than 200 men and 400 women, of a total sample of about 7,000 college students, were excluded from the data for the following crime: They claimed they were heterosexual, but they reported in another part of the survey that more than 90 percent of their sexual fantasies involved someone of the same sex.

That might seem logical to some of you, but let me ask you something: Ever fantasize about a threesome?

I'll bet you have.

And is the third person usually the same gender as your typical sex partner? Meaning that, if you're a straight woman, do you always fantasize about two guys putting it to you? Or does another woman tend to appear?

Regardless of how you answered those questions, let me assure you: It seems a rather common occurrence for people to fantasize about things they don't actually *want* to happen -- or would never dare do. Same-sex encounters. Multiple partners. Discreet sex in public. Sex in wide-open public view with an audience. Rape. Use of inanimate objects that are not your typical sex toy. Whatever.

Sexual fantasy fascinates the devil outta me. This is probably because I was raised in the Catholic church and, consequently, was taught that thinking about *any* sex whatsoever was a sin. DO NOT DO IT. DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. So when I, in my younger days, first found myself thinking about it, I realized I might as well think whatever the hell I wanted. If thinking about anything sexual at all is a sin, how much worse can it be to think about something really, really naughty? Thus, my own proclivities can get pretty wild at times.

Now, I can't say how mine compare to what many other people are fantasizing about because sexual fantasies are rarely a topic of conversation. Their exact nature tend to be saved for: a) pillow talk with our lover; b) discussion with our therapist about specific ones that disturb us; c) talks with close friends while under the influence of intoxicants; and/or d) sublimation into the "arts," including poetry, novels by the likes of Tom Robbin, John Irving and Sarah Waters, Kate Winslet's experience being the butt girl in "Little Children," painting, dance, taudry romance novels and that most free speech of all: porn.

Nevertheless, I'm going to assume that same-sex encounters are not all that uncommon in the fantasy lives of heterosexuals. And that's based on one of my little theories about the origin of fantasies: They're often about the forbidden fruit, that naughty business about which we may have only the slightest actual real-life curiosity but which provides just the sort of salaciousness that whets our sexual appetites. (Pardon me again while I momentarily appreciate the sound of that unintended pun. For another one, see the previous blog entry.)

Do you disagree with me?

Sexual fantasies may have many origins, but I'll say this about them: I can't think of the last time I had a sexual fantasy that involved pretty much what happens ALL THE DAMN TIME (when I actually have a sex life that isn't exclusively autoerotic, that is). By which I mean: It hasn't been my habit to have sexual fantasies in which I am having the regular old sex in bed -- or the other regular places -- with the sex partner with whom I've been engaged at the time. Rather, there are other people who show up (in a moment of overshare, I'll tell you that I usually know them; just think: it could be you! oy...!), and the situations are not typical of my actual sex life, and ... well, that's enough to make my point. (Nuns are never involved, I want to say, although I don't know why I feel like that disclaimer is necessary. But no. No nuns.)

Anyway, back to this research. My point is this: Sexual fantasy is something which perhaps could endure considerably more study by researchers. At the very least, the three bozos who conducted the research S2 and I critiqued need to have their eyes opened a little bit.

'Cause ya know what?

They decided that the only possible explanation for these heterosexuals saying that 90 percent or more of their sexual fantasies *involved* someone of the same sex (not even exclusively, just "involved"), was that these so-called heterosexuals either were wrong -- "response error" -- or were "struggling so vigorously against thinking of themselves as homosexual" that they couldn't bear to mark anything other than heterosexual on the measure of their stated sexual orientation.

Now, being a sexual minority myself, I do sometimes like to entertain the idea that all you straight folks out there -- especially pretty women -- have just not gotten in touch with your inner queer yet. But that's mere entertainment. Something I do that's akin to my Deaf friend Mr. Shineyhead dreaming of a day in which even hearing people communicate in sign language so he's not on the outside all the time. We can all dream....

But the fact is this: These researchers were looking through a lens a bit too narrow. And it was also an incredibly biased one.

'Cause ya know what else?

While the threw out all those so-called heteros with their same-sex fantasies, they did *not* throw out the self-identified homos who reported 90 percent or more of their sexual fantasies involved members of the opposite sex. Apparently, at least according to three published researchers from North Dakota, it's freaky when straight people fantasize about the same sex but perfectly fine when queers fantasize about the opposite sex. You've got to be a pure hetero for their study, but you don't have to be a pure homo.

There's a stinking bias here. As S2 put it, "Of course it's not strange for homos to have straight fantasies. They're outside the norm, so they would naturally fantasize about being 'normal.' But it doesn't make sense to these guys that straight people would fantasize about gay sex." She was kinda pissed. (S2 excels at liberal moral outrage; it's one of her many fine qualities.)

In any case, I want to say this to those researchers: Look in the dark recesses of your own minds, guys. Are you *seriously* so stuck in your narrow little paradigm that you can't envision a broader view of sexuality, one that allows room for sexual fantasy to have *nothing* to do with sexual orientation? Would you, if you had to reconsider your choices, also throw out the queers who have straight fantasies? Or would you allow for the possibility that sometimes it gets a girl wet or a guy hard to imagine a sexual encounter that strays from their stated orientation -- and that when fantasy is going to help a situation, that's the one they tune into? Just what were you trying to prove anyway?

Men show up in my sexual fantasies all the time. But I am, my friends, unquestionably a lesbian. Don't you even think of telling me otherwise.