ABSTRACT
The article has three major purposes. First, it adumbrates four contexts within which the discourse on sexual identity has been carried on: the historical, bisexual, homosexual, and biological. Within these contexts sexual identity has been conceived in three general forms: the biological, psychological, and socio-cultural. The biological form is the most basic since all conceptualizations of sexual identity make the biological sex of partners in sexual relationships the criterial distinction. Second, the article addresses problems that have arisen in each of the contexts: the uncritical use of popular concepts and explanations of sexual identity, the incorporation of unacknowledged moral judgements, and the misapplication of the scientific method. Third, it identifies conceptual, methodological, and moral advantages in redirecting the discourse on sexual identity so that the focus of inquiry is on sexual relationships: (a) The focus is shifted from isolated individuals to their mutual associations. (b) Social scientists could conceive of sexual relationships in other than biological terms or metaphors. (c) The shift would capitalize on the advantages of the psychoanalytic method (the exploration of personally constructed meanings) and symbolic interactionism (the identification of socially constructed meanings) while avoiding the pitfalls of relying on one of these approaches to the exclusion of the other. (d) The shift would allow investigators to view sexual relationships from the vantage point of a morality of individual choice rather than a traditional morality of externally imposed obligation.
