Rejection of Homosexuality - Essay Example

HUMAN SEXUALITY Introduction Oh my God, he is a GAY! – how many times and how many people could hear this phrase, full of surprise, awe, confusion, rejection, and even repulsion! Gays have already become a part of the postmodern life, culture, and routine, but many people still fail to understand and accept homosexuality and same-sex orientation as the integral component of human interactions. The reasons for such confusion and rejection of homosexuality are varied. Some consider homosexuality as a religious sin. Others are confident that homosexuality contradicts the basic laws of nature. However, more often, such misunderstanding is due to the lack of scientific knowledge and theories regarding the development of sexual orientation in humans. The findings of contemporary research in human sexuality are at least controversial. Whether the orientation is the product of genetic of social influences is difficult to define: the current scientific knowledge does not provide an answer to this question. However, based on everything that has been written and said about the issue under consideration so far, the development of sexual orientation is a complex process that combines the features of genetic and social influences. Contemporary science treats sexual orientation as one of the most popular topics of scholarly research, and the issue of human sexuality is often reconsidered from the different philosophic viewpoints. Today, essentialism and social constructivism are fairly regarded as the two principal perspectives in the analysis of sexual orientation development. If we turn to essentialism, we will find out that the orientation, as well as sexuality, in general, as rooted in intrinsic, biological processes.1 Put simply, sexual orientation, including homosexuality, is the critical feature of the human nature and is an essential element of the human genetic structure. Even if social constructs and cultural influences matter the development of human sexuality they are, according to essentialists, minor and do not deserve much attention.2 In their philosophic arguments, essentialists primarily apply to the principles of the evolutionary theory, and claim that “both human sexuality and sexual orientation are coded in human genes; essentialists also claim that throughout the human history, genes promoted reproduction and survival of humans”.3 Therefore, the differences in sexual orientation and sexuality are primarily due to the genetic differences in human gender. Further, based on the essentialist philosophy, sexual orientation development can be easily traced to the genetic features of mothers, their sexual behaviors and activities, and their sexual choices. In brief, everything that happens to human sexuality from the moment of human birth is being governed by genetic programs – this is the principal premise, on which essentialist beliefs about human sexuality rest.4 Essentialism is not the only prism of scientific analysis in the context of human sexuality – social constructionism is a frequent instrument of analyzing the roots of human sexuality and sexual orientation in science. According to social constructionists, sexual orientation and sexuality are equally the products of the cultural processes and forces. In other words, they are culturally constructed.5 In distinction from essentialists, social constructionists do not consider sexuality as the part of the human nature. More importantly, social constructionists do not believe in the existence of the human nature as such.6 Rather, human nature is a concept which is absolutely flexible and susceptible to the changes in the cultural orientation and beliefs. In their argument, social constructionists apply to the cultures and traditions which do not treat homosexuality as the reflection of the human sexual orientation but an element which is fully compatible with their cultural beliefs about homosexual marriage and self-identification.7 Unlike essentialists, social constructionists apply to cultural beliefs, principles, and traditions as the basic unit of sexual orientation measurement and construction – they neglect the relevance of the biological structures but claim that sexual experiences are constituted entirely by cultural and social influences, from narrow social practices to broader cultural ideologies.8 The social construction of sexuality and orientation varies across disciplines – for example, feminist social constructionists hold their own view of human sexuality and sexual orientation which is different from non-feminists.9 Nevertheless, neither of the two approaches provides the fullest explanation of the human sexual orientation phenomenon. Social constructionists are inattentive toward biological influences and structures.10 Essentialists neglect the importance of external influences on sexual orientation. The current state of research leads to an assumption that the orientation is equally the product of genetic and cultural influences, which are complementary and create a complex picture of interrelations in the context of sexual orientation. It is difficult to underestimate the significance of the genetic influences in sexuality development. A wealth of literature was written to link genetics to human sexuality and, more importantly, homosexuality. It is interesting to note, that homosexuality and same-sex orientation are the most frequent topics of sexuality analysis, probably, because many scientists continue to perceive homosexuality as abnormal. In the meantime, homosexuality is a convenient object of investigation and the source of information about human sexuality. Today, numerous assumptions link genetics to homosexuality. For example, Anonymous describes the differences in the size of preoptic/ hypothalamus area in the brains of straight and gay men: it appears, that gay males have a volume of the preoptic/ hypothalamus brain area at least 1.7 times larger compared with straight males.11 By the same token, the differences in the INAH3 cluster of brain cells can be responsible for “the development of same-sex sexual orientation in males”.12 However, the size of the brain is not the only biological explanation to sexual orientation in humans. Camperio-Ciani, Corna and Capiluppi suggest that two essential genetic predictors are related to male homosexuality: (a) the prevalence and number of homosexuals in the maternal line.13 The second factor is the number of older homosexual brothers.14 The latter, according to the researchers, is suggestive of the so-called maternal immunization effects.15 These immunization effects partially explain high fecundity of mothers in the maternal lines of homosexuals – women need to give birth to more males, for such immunization effect to happen.16 Surprisingly or not, these results are further supported by Iemmola and Camperio-Ciani, in a more representative sample.17 Thus, genetic influences matter in the development of orientation and sexuality in humans, but is the scope of genetic factors in human sexuality as magnificent as genetic scientists try to present it? The topic of genetics and sexuality has long been studied by scholars. Whether genes predetermine the course of human sexuality and whether a gay gene exists has been and remains one of the principal scientific concerns. The research into the link between genes and sexuality dates back to the beginning of the 1990s, when Dean Hamer and his colleagues-researchers published the results of their study.18 That was the first time professionals in sexuality studies assumed that homosexuality could be transmitted via maternal genetic lines and associated with the changes in chromosomal Xq28 region.19 However, given the complexity of exploring genetic-sexuality connections in humans, researchers and practitioners had to add to their knowledge of sexuality in animals. Many of them believed that such knowledge of animal sexuality would shed the light on the existing human sexuality controversies. As a result, the National Institutes of Health initiated a profound research of fruit flies in 1995, which was not a study of homosexuality in its pure form but, rather, was designed to re-interpret the changes in sexual behaviors following genetic alterations.20 Surprisingly or not, but the researchers concluded that in fruit flies, both genetic and environmental factors predetermined the direction in the development of male sexual behaviors.21 On the one hand, the results of the study reflected the ongoing disagreement as for what, genetics or environmental factors, dominate in the development of sexuality in animals and humans. On the other hand, those early findings supported a belief that a combination of environmental and genetic factors could be the most reasonable answer to the existing questions in human sexuality. Whether the “gay gene” exists and how it impacts the development of male sexuality is yet to be defined. However, the mere fact that the word combination “gay gene” is used with quotation marks reveals the growing scope of doubts in terms of genetic factors of human sexuality. It seems that modern researchers are not confident what “gay gene” is and how they could explain it. Numerous doubts regarding the interaction between genes and the environment remain extremely relevant. It could be that environmental conditions affect genetic traits and genetic traits transform the effects of the environment on human sexual orientation. All these problems are due to the existing controversies in the genetic research. In reality, genetic studies of human sexuality are associated with numerous difficulties and controversies. The data used for these studies and their conclusions leave much room for further scientific debate. First and foremost, heritability estimates vary across studies and no study reports complete heritability of the genetic factors for homosexual individuals.22 Diamond writes that in most cases, the significance of heritability in sexual orientation is between 30 and 60 percent.23 In one of the studies, the maternal immunization effects on “the development of sexual orientation in humans do not exceed 14%, while the effects of the older homosexual brothers is even less significant – only 6.7%”.24 Another difficulty emerges in the process of evaluating biological/ hormonal influences on the development of human sexuality: Diamond is correct in that if hormonal influenced had been the direct factors of homosexuality in humans, 100% of humans with hormonal abnormalities would have grown to become homosexual.25 This, however, never happened. Only a tiny share of individuals with hormonal abnormalities and issues has ultimately become homosexual.26 Finally, most of the current research in sexual orientation is concentrated on male subjects, whereas the sexual orientation development in women and the relation to genetic factors remain persistently underresearched. All these controversies directly or indirectly imply that genetic influences and biological factors matter for the orientation development. However, it is at least incorrect to account for genetics as the principal driver of sexuality. The development of sexual orientation in humans is a compound product of genetic and cultural influences – the latter are fairly regarded as the carriers of the meaningful symbolic information that affects or reinforces human sexual choices. The presence of same-sex sexuality in nature denies the relevance of Darwin’s theory of evolution and is the direct prerequisite for developing a new, cultural and social view of sexual orientation in humans.27 More importantly, most cases of homosexuality in nature imply that same-sex ties and connections between animals have a predominantly social, not biological, nature.28 Lesbian Lizards, avian arrangements and homosexual contacts between baboons shed the light on the cultural and social implications of sexual orientation.29 Take a look at homosexual lizards: they are the members of their social system and show social behaviors.30 Asexuality of lizards results in the development of more cooperative ties between them, which resembles a form of kinship.31 Although genetic influences and developments are very important in the process of the development of asexuality in lizards, these are the principles of their social performance that lead these animals to unite their efforts and create long-term homosexual ties. That the development and formation of sexual orientation is the product of social influences is easy to see in birds: the patterns of homosexual behavior which they display help to explain the social implications of same-sex relations. Take a look at female pukekos: their homosexual contacts become possible only when both are alone.32 Therefore, the social surrounding does produce a serious influence on how sexual behaviors are established and manifested. Apparently, social conditions that favor same-sex relations will drive the development of homosexual orientation. Furthermore, the absence of other birds may encourage the development of close communication ties between the birds.33 Thus, sexual orientation development takes place in the atmosphere of numerous social and cultural influences. More demonstrative is the case of sheep. In sheep groups, only few males do not participate in same-sex relations.34 Those who are nonhomosexual are also considered as “effeminate”.35 These males are less aggressive and do not accept mounting by other males.36 In the sheep social community, nonhomosexual males are considered abnormal, and it is possible that even hormonal deficiency could underlie their nonhomosexual behaviors.37 With the sheep, cultural, social and normative influences are undeniable: social and cultural beliefs turn the ideas of “normal” and “abnormal” upside down.38 The development and acceptance of homosexuality in the sheep occurs not because of some genetic influences but as a result of the so-called peer pressure, which reverse the course of normative development in a sheep community and make homosexuality a norm. In case of sheep, same-sex orientation and sexual orientation, in general, looks more like a cultural than genetic product, and the changes in sexual norms make the cultural argument even more compelling. A closer look at our closest relatives, baboons, contributes to the development of a cultural vision in sexual orientation. Why do baboons use sex? First, sex facilitates sharing.39 Second, sex is the best way to integrate a newcomer with his new group.40 Third, baboons use sex to reconcile after conflicts, disputes, or arguing.41 Fourth, baboons use sex to create coalitions.42 Fifth, baboons treat sex as candy.43 Finally (and only finally!) baboons use sex for reproduction.44 That reproduction is the last element of sexual activity in baboons implies that this activity, and sexual orientation development is primarily a cultural activity, directed by the cultural and social norms. Based on everything that has been said in this paper, and taking into account that human sexuality in humans is more complex than that in animals. Sexual orientation development in humans is a complex process that combines the features of the genetic and social influences. The future research will need to explore the role and significance of each of the cultural and genetic factors in the development of human sexuality. Conclusion Human sexuality and sexual orientation are among the most frequently discussed topics in scholarly literature. Contemporary science treats sexual orientation as one of the most popular topics for investigation. The issue of human sexuality is often reassessed and there are different philosophic viewpoints. Homosexuals have already become a part of the postmodern life, culture, and routine, however there are a lot of people who still fail to understand and accept homosexuality and same-sex orientation as the integral component of human interactions. According to social constructionists, sexual orientation and sexuality represent the products of the cultural processes and forces. In other words, they are culturally constructed. The recent research findings are extremely controversial, but it is possible to assume that sexual orientation is a complex product of genetic and social influences. The current state of research provides an insight into some of the genetic factors that can influence the development, but their significance is yet to be discovered. In the meantime, cultural factors play one of the dominant roles in the development of sexual beliefs and orientations. Sexual orientation development can be easily traced to the genetic features of mothers, their sexual behaviors and activities, and their sexual choices. However, given the complexity of human sexuality, sexual genetics in humans cannot be neglected. Whether cultural or genetic factors are more important for sexuality is beyond this discussion, but, apparently, genetics and culture work cooperatively to produce a unique vision of sexuality in humans. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous. “Sexual orientation.” Pp.245-261. Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F. & Capiluppi, C. “Evidence for maternally inherited factors favoring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.” Proc R Soc Lond 271 (2004): 2217-2221. Diamond, L. “Gender Differences in Same-Sex Sexuality.” Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, L. Diamond, 17-53, Harvard University Press, London, 2008. Iemmola, F. & Camperio-Ciani, A. “New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men: Female fecundity increase in the maternal line.” Arch Sex Behav 38 (2009): 393-399. Roughgarden, J. Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People. University of California Press, Los Angeles,2004. Read More