More Colors in a Rainbow

With her sexual configurations theory (SCT), vanAnders (2015) wants to solve a number of problems with the current conceptualization of sexual orientation as defined by the sex of the partner(s) one is attracted toandhabitually indicatedwith theKinsey score varying from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual. I agree with van Anders that the conventional conceptualization of sexual orientation has a number of shortcomings. Indeed,whywould the sex of our desired partners be the prime organizing feature of our sexuality? What is the role of partners’ genderedness or of othermajor person characteristics? ‘‘Biological sex’’ is not as clear-cut a category to justify its monopoly position in sexual orientation theory in thefirst place. Obviously, reliance on (difference or similarity between) discrete binary categories ill-caters for those who do not fit them, such as intersex and trans people.Moreover, Kinsey scores are extremely crude.And they are ill-catering for asexuality and inconsiderate of solo sexual experiences. Besides,‘‘the score’’ assumes stabilitywherewe knowdynamic fluidity exists. And indeed, theempiricaldifferences inscoreson thevariousdomains of sexual orientation (attraction, self-identification, and behavior) add to theconfusionofwhatweareexactly referring towhen talking about‘‘sexual orientation.’’ Because of all these problems, van Anders proposes SCT, aimed to better ‘‘address the complexities of actual people’s sexualities’’and she wants to do so in an inclusive, norm free, andnon-discriminatoryway.SheclaimsSCTsusefulnessforselfknowledgeandsexualminorities’empowerment,aswellasfor neuroendocrinological,social,andhealth-relatedresearchmethodologiesandclinicalpractice. Igladlytaketheopportunitytoshare why I feel shehas comea longway in reaching thosegoalswhile at the same timenot fully fulfillingher ambitiouspromises.First, a short description of the SCT is in order.