The Development of Sexual Orientation Among Human Beings - Research Paper Example

A thing of the natural world, the body was expected to speak of its own needs in an ancient, authoritative voice. It was only prudent to listen at times. The tolerance that was extended to the body in late classical times was based on a sense that the antithesis to the animal world, the city, was so strong that, once made, the claims of the city were inexorable. The family and the city determined the degree to which the results of the body’s connection with the natural world was acceptable in organized society.1 Introduction: No matter how integrally the essential traits of human civilization and sexuality are interrelated and complementary to each other, however, the latter has always remained as an aspect of prohibition, strict control and condemnation. Irrespective of differences in socio-cultural, political and socio-religious perspectives, practice of sexuality or expression of sexual orientations has received negative response both from common people and social institutions. An overview of the history of sexuality clearly provides evidence in support of the observation that conventional social approach, though, only has approved sexual relationship between male and female that is also after development of a socially accepted marital relationship, however, practices of sexual variations, such as, homosexuality, bisexuality have continued since early dawn of the human civilization. The kind of oppression, which is mainly exaggerated on practicing variations of sexuality, is grounded on the argument that these practices actually violate norms of morality as prescribed by socio-religious institutions. However, the progress of the civilization witnessed several socio-cultural changes that were introduced by the intellectual revolutions during the most crucial junctures of the progressive course, consequently giving birth to increasing awareness of human rights, cultural outlook and human being’s spontaneous choices regarding acceptance of their sexual orientation and depending on the same their preference of sexual partners. Irrespective of the fact that heterosexual relationships are still widely acknowledged in the social context, people have undertaken a more liberal approach towards the issue of homoerotic relations. Considerable amount of researches over human psychology, biological evolution, genetic factors, and social studies have revealed that development of heterosexual or homosexual orientation is an organic and gradual process, which does not have anything to do with wickedness of human nature or inclination towards homosexual relation will not always mean that lack of opportunity to enjoy sexual pleasure has resulted in choosing for the same gender relation. These researches have also made it quite clear that homosexual relation, though is considered as a moral vice, has no essential or logical connection with established social taboos and the partners, engaged in such homoerotic relationships act in the same manner as that of the heterosexual couples. The Development of Sexual Orientation among Humans: According to scholarly observations, the first step toward the development of sexual orientation among human beings is taken during the time when an individual commences to explore his/her respective gender identity.2 According to Joan Roughgarden in case of individual realization both for gender identity and sexual orientation there is an early limit and a late limit3: “An early limit would seem to be a year or so after birth, for two reasons. First, sexual orientation would seem to require the mental lenses that distinguish gender and thus would develop only after gender identity develops. Because gender identity seems set by about the first year after birth, sexual orientation could begin from then. Second, adopted boys with a gay brother are more likely to be gay than adopted boys with a straight brother. This line of thought also suggests an early limit near a year or so after birth, when adoptions typically take place.”4 When it comes to estimating the late limit for the development of sexual orientation among human beings, Joan Roughgarden is of opinion that the first consciousness of an individual about his/her inclination toward the same sex, which generally takes place only 2 years before attaining puberty (around the age of ten)5. In his discussion he also has pointed out to a major misconception that prevails among psychologists that homosexual males actually develop almost an identical brain structure as that of their female counterparts. The sexual dimorphicism in human brain is controlled by SDN-POA, BSTc, and VIP-SCN nerve cells, and among these cells VIP-SCN is mainly responsible to determine the sexual orientation factor in males. The size of VIP-SCN never cells of the homosexual men are larger than their straight counterparts and even bigger than that of women. The homosexual women, like that of the homosexual males, also have a different brain structure compared to the heterosexual counterparts and structure of their brain actually makes them intermediate of the women and men, having straight sexual orientation.6 While the discussion of Joan Roughgarden regarding “Sexual Orientation” has covered a great deal of scope including nervous structure, brain shape, genetic formation and chromosome orientation, however, he also has provided considerable importance on the evolutionary theory in order to find the root of the development of sexual orientation among human beings. The research has led him to construction of the argument that homoerotic inclination or development of sexual desire among same gender partners does not essentially mean that there would be lack of absence of sexual partners. More importantly, such bond construction signifies development of same sex bonds or alliances for the necessary conditions, when such bonding might prove to be most useful.7 Keeping in accordance to this argument he has further elucidated that development of sexual orientation among human beings can be regarded as a complex but organic process of “social adaptation”, resulting in “positive evolution.”8 The unique way to evaluate the process of sexual orientation among human beings as a method of social adaptation, signifying positive evolution become extremely important within context of the discussion. As it has always been mentioned that determination of sexual orientation, which commences at a very early stage of human development both from physical and psychological perspectives, is actually an assimilation of several socio-cultural, psychological, circumstantial and biological aspects and conjointly, all these factors make it quite difficult to cite the sole or the most important influence that determines the nature of sexual orientation. However, the study done by Andrea Camperio-Ciani et. al. provides an important scope to go deeper within the discussion. According to the final analysis of the data retrieved from ninety eight homosexuals and hundred heterosexual males from northern Italy it has been suggested that people with homoerotic sexual inclination have the same connection in their both paternal and maternal pedigree lines. However, the number of homosexual relatives is more on the mother’s side9: “(i) the prevalence of homosexuals in the maternal line, suggesting possible genetic factors in the X-chromosome; and (ii) the number of older bothers of homosexuals, suggesting a possible maternal immunization effect.”10 While such scientific analysis comes up with a strong argument in favor of the observation that development of sexual orientation among humans is entirely a genetic affair, however. Lisa M. Diamond, in her discussion has clearly stated that it would only be partially correct to conclude that the development of sexual orientation among human beings is entirely determined by genetic functions. In the introductory part of Chapter II she has specifically opined that sexual behaviorism, thought and developments are controlled by a number of biological and social factors and the interaction between these two domains is highly complicated to differentiate.11 The author’s strong argument regarding integral interaction between biological and social factors regarding determinism of sexual orientation in human beings becomes extremely important within context of discussion because the analysis of evolutionary theory by Joan Roughgarden receives a strong and logical support. In his discussion Roughgarden argued that development of sexual orientation can be argued as an effective evolutionary process to meet the expectations of the social adaption. Keeping in mind the kind of oppression and condemnation that people with sexual affinity toward same sex suffer, the bond is often used by them as an effective defense to fight against social discrimination. While the biological factors sometimes become explicit factors in the context of determining sexual orientation, on several cases, the features related to affinity toward same sex or homoeroticism remain recessive. However, the social taboos regarding sexual purity and forced acceptance of heterosexualism often bring forth the recessive features. Additionally, in spite of the fact that the society, compared to the earlier times, has advanced to a considerable extent regarding acceptance of mixing between different genders. However, the social prejudices have remained almost equally stubborn when it comes to accepting the spontaneous human desire to satisfy sexual urge. Quite naturally, under such situations, the recessive features become prominent and consequently the sexual inclination toward the same sex becomes poignant.12 However, in order to retain the aspect of sexual preferences an individual tries to become a part of the community that would appreciate such sexual behaviorism that is unacceptable for the general social course; consequently, the issues related to “social adaptation”, resulting in “positive evolution” as argued by Roughgarden is also justified. In the context of understanding and reaching to a conclusive point regarding determination of the factors that lead to determination of sexual orientation among human beings, a great deal of debate occur between scholars. While some of them are of opinion that development of sexual orientation is entirely a biological, organic process, the other group has argued that cultural elements entirely determine an individual’s inclination towards his/her sexual preferences. The supporters of scientific argument for sexual determinism are known as the Essentialists, whereas the other group scholars are known as the Social constructionists.13 However, absolute inclination over either of these theories does not explain the development of homoerotic orientation among women, or the nature of their sexuality: “Taken alone, neither essentialism nor social constuctionism adequately explains women’s sexuality. Pure essentialism … is blind to the powerful sociocultural forces that mold … women’s sexual desire over the lifespan. There is simply no way to identify, measure, or even conceptualize sexual desires outside of their situational and sociocultural contexts. …pure social constructionism is also deeply problematic. Pore social constructionism fails to consider how sociocultural factors interact with real bodies in real time to generate different forms of erotic experience.”14 According to the author, women’s sexual desire is not predetermined but the presence of sexual fluidity, which she has defined as an individual component of female sexuality that functions in accordance with female sexual orientation to construct the nature of women’s sexual affinity.15 Compared to their male counterparts, according to the author, determination of the nature of sexual orientation among women is more complicated because the nature of their desires or behavior is quite distinguished than that of males: “Thus the notion of female sexual fluidity suggests not that women possess no generalized sexual predispositions but there predispositions will prove less of a constraint on their desires and behaviors than in case for men. As a result, it might be impossible to determine whether, in a particular instance, a woman’s desires or behaviors are more attributable to dispositional or situational factors.”16 While neither the essentialist nor the social constructionist theories have been able to explain the determination of sexual orientation among human beings completely, but arguments of both these disciplines cannot be ignored entirely, the Neuroendocrine theory has attracted special attention from the author. The foundations of this theoretical discipline lie in the assumption that “prenatal hormonal exposure in utero might influence sexual orientation.”17 Joan Roughgarden also talked about the sexually dimorphic structure of mammalian brain and in her discussion Lisa M. Diamond has suggested that the nature of sexual orientation among human beings can be understood in a better way if application of the Neuroendocrine theory is evaluated in terms of the sexual dimorphism of the human brain.18 Results of the experiments conducted according to principles of the Neuroendocrine theory over mammals have shown that two hormones, androgens and estrogens, which are secreted by the maturing fetal genitals play one of the most crucial roles in determining the nature of sexual differences in mammalian brains.19 These researches have made it clear that “… alterations in fetal hormone exposure have been associated with alterations in animals’ adult sexual behavior. Specifically, male-typed sexual behavior in female animals has been associated with abnormally high level of prenatal androgen exposure, whereas female-typed sexual behavior in male animals has been associated with abnormally low levels of androgen exposure.20” These experiments have led the scientists to believe that prenatal hormonal environment has a leading role to play in determining the human brain’s preference for a particular sexual orientation. However, according to the author it would be a matter of less prudence if results of these experiments are considered ultimate because, in support of her argument, she, quite justly has pointed out that in case of animals sexual behavior is entirely a hormone controlled issue and unlike humans their sexual behaviorism is not controlled by intellectual awareness or factors associated with social consideration.21 Conclusion: The development of sexual orientation among human beings, it can be said after adequate evaluation of the both scientific and socio-cultural issues, occur either due to genetic factors or by coming under the influence of socio-cultural issues. The genetic issues and hormonal activities definitely play an important role in determining the sexual orientation among human beings and impact of the same becomes clear as a person gradually starts participating in the general course of social existence. On the other hand, there is no scope to deny the truth development of sexual orientation among human beings also receive considerable amount of importance through their respective association with specific cultural groups through the form of media focus, literatures or other forms of community sources.22 The hormonal and genetic functionality determines the nature of sexual orientation among human beings during their childhood but due to social factors, the issues of anti-heterosexual feelings are often ignored. However, the cultural oppression, social taboos and resources from particular cultural communities encourage an individual to explore the hidden traits of his/her respective sexual preference. While the Essentialist and Social Constructionist approaches have their respective ways of explaining the nature of sexual orientation among human beings, however, in actuality development of sexual orientation commences with awareness of gender identity and finally both the biological and cultural factors play complementary roles in determining the actual nature of sexual preference. Bibliography Brown. Cited in: Martin Hugo Cordova Quero. "Friendship with Benefits: A Queer Reading of Alfred of Rievalux and His Theology of Friendship." The sexual theologian: essays on sex, God and politics. (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004). Capiluppi, Claudio, Corna, Francesca and Camperio-Ciani, Andrea. “Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity”. The Royal Society. (London, 2004). Diamond, Lisa M. “Gender Differences in Same-Sex Sexuality.” Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2008). Roughgarden, Joan. Evolution's rainbow: diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. (California: University of California Press, 2004). Read More