Some Theories on Sexual Orientation - Research Paper Example

Some Theories on Sexual Orientation What does the length of certain fingers, genetic make-up, and size of certain parts of the brain, number of older siblings, inherited maternal factors and social upbringing of a person have in common? Unrelated as they may seem, many researchers (Putz, Gaulin, Sporter & McBurney, 2004: 182; Berenbaum & Bailey, 2003: 1102; Camperio-Ciani, Corna & Capiluppi, 2004: 2217; Rahman, 2005: 382) have found that all these factors directly or indirectly influence a person’s sexual orientation. The actual reasons why people become gay, lesbian or bisexual has been a topic of much debate in recent years and as many conclusions as there are researchers have been made, making the issue more complicated rather than simpler. However, a closer look into the evidence provided to support different theories on sexual orientation would reveal that sexual orientation is primarily caused by biological factors and the other range of proposed factors is mostly as an outcome of the intrinsic composition of the person. According to LeVay (2010: 1), sexual orientation is the trait (resulting from the person’s genetic makeup) that predisposes people to experience sexual attraction to people of a similar sexual orientation as themselves (homosexual, gay, or lesbian), to people of the opposite sexual orientation (heterosexual or straight) or to both (bisexual). It is important to define the term adequately since most researchers who differ in conclusions start by differing in the definition of the issue of interest. Sexual orientation, as LeVay (2010: 1) states, is, therefore, directly linked to the sex of a person’s preferred sex partner. This is in contrast to what some researchers consider as sexual orientation based on non-biological factors such as individual choices one makes later in life (Lever, 1995: 21) or traditionally, the number of times one has had sexual contact with partners of the same or opposite sex. Other definitions of homosexuality also support the fact that it is largely based on the preferred sex of a person’s partner (Långström, Rahman, Carlström & Lichtenstein, 2010: 75). Therefore, having sexual contact with a person of a similar gender does not make one a homosexual, neither is homosexuality a choice a person makes (LeVay, 2010: 41). Theories based on social factors have several shortcomings, all of which support the fact that sexual orientation is primarily determined by the person’s biology, beginning early during childhood and persisting throughout a person’s life. The psychoanalytic theory first proposed by Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) suggests that homosexual men develop this trait early in life and are usually closer to the mother than the father (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, 1981: 57). He further explains how this closeness of gay men to the female parent makes them pick up feminine characteristics, including the preferred sex of their sexual partner. The theory has been supported by several other researchers who argue the same point but in different ways. However, this theory is purely descriptive and provides no evidence at all (Koerner & LeVay, 2000: 68) in support of its claims. It may be proven that most gay men are closer to their mothers than their fathers but the same trend is also observed in straight men (Ploderl & Fartacek, 2009: 400) so there is no direct link between homosexuality and closeness to parents of the opposite sex other than the fact that there lacks information to refute the claim (LeVay, 2010: 33). Learning theory (mostly used to explain that homosexuality is a learnt behavior) suggests that the brain of a child resembles a blank paper and the first sexual experience of the child determines the sexual orientation of the child, and this assumption raises more questions than provides answers (LeVay, 2010: 34). The first sexual experience is most of the time as a result of molestation which behaviorists say can result to the child preferring the sex of the molester in later years. However, it could also result to the child-hating the experience and thus preferring sexual partners of the opposite sex of the molester. Furthermore, the theory is contradictory since evidence has shown that there are a lot of heterosexual people who have undergone sexual molestation during their childhood, but do not end up being homosexuals. It has also been revealed that most individuals learn about their sexual orientations when they are still virgins (Quinn & Liben, 2008: 1067). Gender learning has also been proven not to work since several studies (Roselli & Stormshak, 2009: 611) have shown that sexual orientation is inborn and can never be learned. From a biological point of view, development of sexual orientation for male and female gender is more or less the same. Scientific evidence indicates that the process of acquiring a certain sexual orientation is influenced by certain factors which are majorly biological rather than social (Savic, Berglund, Gulyas & Roland, 2001: 661; Hamer, Magnuson, Hu & Pattatucci, 1993: 321). Genes have been commonly identified as the cause of homosexuality as opposed to other factors since a person’s nature is as a result of the expression of their genetic makeup, which includes their preference for same-sex sexual partners (Långström, Rahman, Carlström & Lichtenstein, 2010: 76). The effects of sex hormones and genes (which regulate sexual behavior in humans) occur through the same biological process of meiosis for both males and females. This means that both males and females develop, in the same way, through expression of their genes and differences in sexual orientation are developed internally as are other behavioral characteristics of a person. However, slight differences may occur at times such as in the case where the older brother effect is found to create an impact on the males only (VanderLaan & Vassey, 2009: 495). Regardless of a person’s sex, other disciplines related to human biology have made theories explaining homosexuality. They all differ but explain the same point which is homosexuality is mainly as a result of biological as opposed to social, economic or other factors. These areas of knowledge include evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. Evolutionary biologists analyze the processes that produce diversity of life forms on earth, descent of species and origin of new species while evolutionary psychology concentrates on the psychological mechanisms that have evolved as a result of natural selection. Sociobiology, on the other hand, is the application of evolutionary biology in the process of understanding social behavior of animals, and this includes humans. All these disciplines of human behavior can be used to explain the development of sexual orientation in humans from different perspectives (LeVay, 2010: 46). From a socio-biologist’s perspective, human sexuality is purely aimed at reproduction to produce offspring that will carry on the genes of the parents (Cameron & Cameron, 1995: 611). Since homosexuals are not capable of producing offspring to carry on their genes, and then it is highly unlikely that homosexual genes will be transferred to the next generation. However, homosexuality has been around for many years and scientists have observed that even though homosexuals may not produce their offspring, they take good care of young children related to them such as nieces and nephews. This increases the children’s chances of survival and thus indirectly facilitate passing down of the family genes, including some of their own, to other generations (Vassey & VanderLaan, 2010: 495). This also explains why homosexuality can be found to occur in more members of certain families (Bobrow & Bailey, 2001: 361). This exceptional care is however not replicated to other unrelated children and also this reasoning cannot be applied to certain cultures where family ties are not so tight. In contrast to a socio-biologist, an evolutionary psychologist would argue that natural selection (responsible for eliminating or promoting certain genes in a species) occurs as a result of the changing milieu and so in this case, sexual orientation is largely influenced by the social environment of a person. However, lack of scientific evidence makes the argument less reliable. In cultures where homosexuality is shunned, chances of having homosexual individuals are low as compared to where the society is liberal on the same matter such as the Samoa community in the Pacific Islands (Schmidt, 2003: 85). As the social environment shifts towards an anti-homosexual culture, the genes responsible for homosexuality trait are rarely turned on and eventually disappear and vice-versa. According to an evolutionary psychologist, the interaction between natural selection and the social environment is therefore the main determinant of development of sexual orientation – a conclusion that undoubtedly leaves many unanswered questions. However, scientific research involving experimental studies done on animals can provide more reliable results of development of sexual orientation in humans. Studies done on animals, especially higher primates, have shown that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, not a learned human behavior. Animals are common scientific research specimen owing to their ability to produce reliable results. Studies of various animals’ sexual behavior show that homosexuality is rampant among most of them (Alexander & Hines, 2002: 427; Arnold, 2009: 377). Female Japanese macaques have been observed (in both captive and free-roaming settings) to engage in frequent homosexual behavior including mounting other females and other sexual acts such as stimulation of sexual organs with purposes of sexual pleasure to their partners (Vasey & Pfaus, 2005: 265). This shows that homosexuality is not a learnt behavior but occurs naturally as has been shown by certain primates and mammals whose sexual behavior are influenced internally by biological factors, similar to humans (Hassett, Siebert & Wallen, 2008: 359). This further supports the fact that biological factors are the main causes of homosexual traits in humans. Apart from the observations made based on the research done on animals, taking a closer look into the biological perspective of development of sexual orientation helps us understand that homosexuals are not abnormal (LeVay, 1991: 1034) or results of bad social upbringing, but rather normal beings who contribute to the diversity observed in most species. They are unique individuals and the difference in their genetic makeup contributes to the biological factors such as the impact of sex hormones on various parts of their brains (Swaab, 1995: 509; Lutchmaya, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Knickmeyer & Manning, 2004: 23) that ultimately influence their sexual orientation. Sex hormones are the major determinants of how homosexuals behave, including their physical attributes such as voice and body proportions (Galis, Ten Broek, Dongen & Wijnaendts, 2010: 57). Based on the observations made in several studies, LeVay (2010: 271) concludes that if testosterone levels are high at certain points in the development of the fetus, the brain is organized in a way that the individual will develop masculine traits, including the sexual attraction to females. If the testosterone levels are however low during the same period, the brain will be organized such that one will develop feminine characteristics which also include sexual attraction to males (Ward & Weisz, 1984: 1635). Bisexuality might be as a result of an intermediate testosterone level although it is debatable. Influence of sex hormones on brain development is however not conclusive of sexual orientation development (LeVay, 2010: 43). The levels and action of sex hormones are usually mediated by genes. However, the large number of genes involved in the activation of sex hormones and their interaction with target tissues makes it difficult to pinpoint a specific gene(s) that would be held responsible for these traits (Hamer, 1999: 285). Furthermore, various people may carry certain genes that exhibit certain homosexual characteristics, and this leads to the varied nature of homosexuals (LeVay, 2010: 159). All the same, the role of genes in determining homosexuality cannot be disputed. More research is still being done to provide more accurate results. Persistence of homosexuality over the course of evolution can be attributed to biology, specifically genetics. The most plausible reason is also connected to biology whereby inheritance of “gay genes” makes a man more sexually attractive to women through enhancing certain feminine qualities like gentleness, empathy, and the like (Zietsch, et al., 2008: 424). These men end up having more kids and pass on the same genes to their next generation. If more of these genes happen to end up in one person, then he/she becomes gay (LeVay, 2010: 286). Epigenetics – how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches (epi-marks) can also contribute to homosexuality when they are accidentally passed on from father to daughter or mother to son (Långström, Rahman, Carlström & Lichtenstein, 2010: 79). This is however a new concept which is also under research. In conclusion, we can see that biological factors provide more evidence regarding the development of sexual orientation as opposed to other social methods which largely base their arguments on theories and inferences. Genes particularly play a large role in the development of sexual orientation in humans through the influence of sex hormones and their target organs especially the brain (LeVay, 2010: 158). More studies are still being done to establish the exact causal relationship between the genes and homosexuality since it has been seen in other non-human primates. However, the exact causation relationship between genes and sexual orientation will be established when the genes responsible for these traits are identified (Långström, Rahman, Carlström & Lichtenstein, 2010: 79). Until then, a change of attitude is still necessary for the society to eliminate the victimization of homosexuals and embrace diversity since they are still normal people. References Långström, N., Rahman, Q., Carlström, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2010). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 75-80. LeVay, S. (2010). Gay, straight, and the reason why: The science of sexual orientation. Oxford University Press Read More