Abstract
This paper examines homosexuality from several perspectives. It establishes a foundation not only by defining the term homosexuality, but also by understanding its historical origins and its influences. Both biological and environmental views are examined in order to provide the reader with sufficient information to understand their influences. There are several studies included, as available, to support these views.
Homosexuality is one of the most controversial topics our society has faced and continues to face. A lack of knowledge and understanding about its origin tend to exacerbate the controversy that surrounds this innate human desire for affection and intimacy. It is a social problem. However, it is not in the way that an individual with social behaviorist views may believe it to be. It is a problem because of the unnecessary prejudice, isolation, and ridicule that individuals in our society endure due to our ignorance, apathy, and lack of interest in educating ourselves about something we believe is a “choice”. The purpose of this research paper is to begin to educate myself, and those who read it, about the history, the biological and environmental perspective, and the reality about homosexuality.
What is Homosexuality?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2010), defines homosexual as: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex; of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. According to this definition homosexuality is a noun used to define sexual desire or intercourse between two people of the same sex. By this definition, it is easy to understand why so many individuals believe that it is a choice and a behavior that can be controlled or eradicated.
Historical View
Although the term homosexuality was recently coined in the 19th century by Karoly Maria Benkert, a German psychologist, the concept of homosexuality can be dated back to the ancient Greeks (Pickett, 2006). At that time, there was no such dichotomy of heterosexual versus homosexual. There is, however an abundance of material from ancient Greece referring to sexuality. Included in this material is Plato’s Symposium.
According to historical data, many of these male-only discussions, which involved drinking, were focused on the idea of love. Not only was homosexuality considered normal, but the writings include an article which claims it to be superior to heterosexuality (Jowett, 1817-1893).
Historical View from a Psychological Perspective
A psychologist by the name of Karen Hooker performed a study on both heterosexual and homosexual males in order to explore the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development. The methods used for testing these two groups who were matched in age, education, and intelligence, were the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test, and the Make-A-Picture Test. Based on the results of this study, she concluded that there is no significant difference between these two groups, and therefore no social determinism of sexuality.
Her study was paramount in determining the psychological perspective of homosexuality. In 1973, as a result of Karen Hooker’s study, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders (DSM) (Rubinstein, 1995).
Gartell et al (1974) administered a survey to 908 psychiatrists about their attitude toward homosexual patients. The results of this survey indicated high percentages supported legalizing homosexuality, and more than 66% of them accorded that psychiatric labels should not be used in the diagnosis of homosexuality; also denying that it is pathological. This attitude and the removal of homosexuality from the DSM have greatly contributed to mental health professionals no longer attempting to change the sexual orientation of homosexual patients.
Is Homosexuality a Trend?
Individuals, who are not aware of the historical antecedents of homosexuality, even before such term existed, may consider it to be a trend. Some believe that it is just a fad that people go through, especially within younger generations. Engaging in it, either to experiment or simply for attention. Certain factors like media, technology, and AIDS have given homosexuality both, negative and positive exposure. One of the benefits of such exposure is that media has provided a forum for individuals to freely express themselves. Unfortunately, it has also subjected them to a biased audience who has not been educated about the history and the biological and environmental facts of homosexuality.
Organized groups and individuals who view homosexuality as a “new” phenomenon and perhaps “just a fad”, may believe that it is a social problem which derives from the homosexual’s cultural environment, as opposed to a genetic trait. If homosexual traits are believed to originate from genetics, people may be more open to accept them as natural.
Fluidity
Sexual fluidity is a common term being used to describe individuals, particularly women, who refuse to identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. They describe it as falling in love or being attracted to a person, regardless of gender. This attraction goes beyond a physical one, and is rather an intimate emotional connection. Although one might think that this is a trendy phrase used to describe liberal behavior, the concept of it dates back to the 1930s. Alfred Kinsey, at the University of Indiana conducted a survey in which he asked adult males if they had engaged in any homosexual relations. When the question was posed in that manner, a high percentage of them answered no. The question was later changed by asking if any of them had engaged in “same-sex” relations and the number of individuals who responded “yes” nearly doubled. The experiment yielded that 30% of males had engaged in same-sex relations. These results led to the development of the popular Kinsey Scale of Sexuality, which rates individuals on a spectrum of 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual and everything in between (Johnson, 2003).
The Nature Perspective
Proponents of this theory believe that human traits are inherited, personalities are a result of evolutionary process, and people inherit their behaviors due to complex genetic interactions. It is our genes that dictate our behaviors. Therefore, an individual behaves the way he does because he is “wired” that way. With respect to homosexuality, this biological perspective explains it as a genetic predisposition, just like the color of a person’s eyes.
In 1990, D.F. Swaab conducted an experiment to determine any physiological differences between male homosexual and heterosexual brains. Swaab’s findings reported that there is a marked difference in the structure of the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is the portion of the brain that is directly related to sexual drive. The suprachiasmatic nucleus, which is a small part of the hypothalamus, was found to be twice as large in homosexual men, than their heterosexual counterparts (Johnson, 2003). The size of the brain is a genetic factor, which is determined biologically during gestation. It is highly unlikely that behavior, including sexual, would impact the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus.
Another study to support biological predisposition, was performed in 1991. This experiment took place at Stanford University, and it involved neuroendocrine studies and rats. The theory hypothesizes that sexual orientation is determined by levels of androgen during a prenatal stage. In the lab, androgen was administered to rats at early stages of development. The female rats who received male levels of androgen during development exhibited highly masculinized traits, and male symptoms of attraction toward females. Vice-versa, male rats that received female dosages of androgen exhibited submissive behaviors in regards to sexual drive and reproduction (Johnson, 2003). The male rats allowing other male rats to perform sexual acts on them demonstrated this behavior.
The final study researched, for the purposes of this paper, was performed in 1993. A scientist by the name of Dean Hamer, genetically tested 40 pairs of homosexual brothers to see if he could identify the existence of a correlation between homosexuality and an X-linkage. Hamer was interested in examining the possibility that homosexuality stems from a maternal lineage. It was then that the discovery of the Xq28—coined the “gay gene”—was formed (Pickett, 2006).
The Nurture Perspective
According to John Locke an individual’s mind is a blank slate when he is born. His behavior is determined by the cultural environment, including parents and community. He is born without any predisposed mental substance (Berk, 2001).
Environmentalist proponents view homosexuality as a result of external factors, rather than biological ones. This argument can be traced back to ancient Greece when Aristophanes discussed homosexuality in his symposium. He believed that there is a strong desire by two men to share “fulfillment of the soul”, but this strong desire alone is not sufficient to create homosexuality, rather society and our cultural environment will either condone it or forbid it (Pickett, 2006).
The Behavioral stance on homosexuality is based on the idea that parent-child relationships are crucial in establishing feminine and masculine roles (Johnson, 2003). In other words, a child’s sexuality is determined by the stereotypes their parents impose on them. This can be accomplished by only permitting and encouraging heterosexual and gender appropriate behaviors. Boys should not play with dolls, and girls should not play aggressive sports. A psychoanalytic perspective would also support this theory stressing the role of parental influence, and family dynamics in the early years. Including the inability to resolve any Oedipal complexes.
The problem with said theories is that there is little social, or biological evidence to support that homosexual children were raised differently than heterosexual ones. It is very difficult to study the correlation between family dynamics and sexual inclinations. Further arguing that if homosexuality is determined by family roles and influences, parental and environmental stereotypes would tend to ensure a heterosexual outcome.
Conclusion
I believe that I have presented sufficient evidence for the beginnings of a long process in understanding andeducating ourselves about a normal aspect of human nature. Perhaps one with which we are not familiar or comfortable. But, one for which we must take the initiative to understand in order to provide support and resources to, and most importantly, be tolerant of individuals dealing with this inner-conflict. In hopes that someday, as a society, we might destruct all the social constructs that cause the most natural expression of human affection to become an “inner-conflict”.
References
Berk, L. E. (2001). Philosophies of Childhood. In L. E. Berk, Development Through the Lifespan
(p. 13). Needham Heights
Gartell, N. Kraemer, H., & Brodie, H.K. (1974). Psychiatrists’ attitudes toward female
homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 159, 141-144
Gutenberg: www.gutenberg.org
Johnson, R. D. (2003). Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture. AllPsych Journal .
Jowett, B. (1817-1893). Symposium by Plato. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Project
Pickett, B. (2006, November 29). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 13,
2010, from Homosexuality: www.plato.standford.edu
(2010, October 12). Merriam-Webster Dictionary . Merriam-Webster Incorporated.
No comments:
Post a Comment