Download The Dichotomist Male: Theoretical Models of Male Homosexuality

The Dichotomist
Male: Theoretical
Models of Male
Homosexuality
by Marcelo M. Hanza
Completed as a requisite for Psychology of
Motivation, Spring 2007
Homosexuality, as it is represented in todayÕs
culture, is a topic of varied social, political, biological,
psychological and religious controversy. The term
ÒhomosexualityÓ can be deÞned as any sexual
activity between members of the same sex (Tripp
1975). In attempt to determine causation or reveal the
mechanistic properties involved in homosexuality,
two major areas of thought have been derived. The
ÒnatureÓ view is in the realm of the biological sciences
and stresses biological or genetic predispositions
towards homosexuality. Contrastingly, in the social
sciences, there is the ÒnurtureÓ view that stresses
psychological and sociological factors leading to
homosexuality rather than genetic variables. Within
the study of motivation, one of the most fundamental
and innate factors assimilated into human behavior
is that of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction
is concerned with passing on oneÕs genetic material,
in order to perpetuate the survival of oneÕs genes.
In the natural world, sexual reproduction is just one
type of method of reproduction. However, it is the
only source of reproduction available to humans.
Identifying both biological and psychological research
pertaining to homosexuality is especially relevant
to the study of motivation because, interestingly,
homosexual behavior seems to contradict standard
theoretical explanations as a major source of
motivation. This paper will identify and discuss the
various models of sexual motivation in homosexual
males, both from biological and psychological
viewpoints.
Before discussing the implications of homosexual
motivation, it is necessary to identify the advantages
of sexual reproduction, in general. These advantages
are relevant due to the homo sapien evolution of a
strictly sexual means of reproduction. Within
the context of scientiÞc explanation, sexual
reproduction can be deÞned as the union of two
reproductive cells, or gametes, which fuse together to
make a zygote (Krogh 2005). The zygote eventually
develops into a fetus and is thus the product of
successful reproduction. It is important to note that
sexual reproduction consists of specialized sex-cells,
male and female. These gametes contain the genes
of both male and female parents. This combination
allows genetic variation by means of crossing over
and independent assortment, which in turn provides
a greater likelihood for the offspring to adapt and
survive in its environment (Krogh, 2005; Petri &
Govern 2004). The adaptation of a species to its
environment as a means of is survival was Þrst
explained by Charles Darwin (1899) and goes to the
heart of the Theory of Evolution.
Within the framework of Evolution lies the
principle of Natural Selection, which is deÞned as
a process in which the differential adaptation of
organisms to their environment selects those traits
that will be passed on with greater frequency (Krogh
2005). The process of natural selection in animals and
humans is carried out through sexual selection, which
can be deÞned as a form of nonrandom mating that
produces reproductive success, based on success in
obtaining mating partners (Krogh 2005). The principle
of sexual selection infers that members of a species
participate in nonrandom mating, which basically
means that each member of a population is not as
equally likely to mate with another member of the
same population (Krogh 2005). From the standpoint
of evolutionary psychology, males and females exhibit
different strategies in selecting mates. Males posses
an abundance of reproductive material (sperm) and
are more likely to mate with the maximum amount of
females in order to pass on his own genes (Petri,
Govern 2004). Contrastingly, females have a
limited amount of eggs and are much more selective
in choosing a mate, as they rely on the success of the
production of the zygote in order to pass on their own
genetic material. From an evolutionary standpoint,
humans rely on sexual reproduction as the only
means of genetic continuity and variation. The success
of variation can only be accomplished by sexual
reproduction between males and females. However,
the theory of sexual selection does not explain, then,
why males mate with other males or the reason that
a prevalence of homosexual behavior has not been
selected against.
There have been theories introduced in biology
pertaining to evolution and ecology which clearly
challenge the Darwinian model of sexual selection.
These models are derived from a majority of
ethological research. Joan Roughgarden (2004)
discusses a plethora of examples of homosexual
behavior in mammalian species ranging from
Bighorn sheep to bottle-nosed dolphins to Bonobo
monkeys. Darwinism, as it is, seems to have left out
a large and legitimate range of species that not only
exhibit homosexual behavior while also participating
in successful sexual reproduction. The example
of Bighorn sheep is a perfect example given by
Roughgarden as a means of evidence in her counter
argument against sexual selection.
Bighorn sheep inhabit areas of the Rocky
Mountains, Montana and Canada. Males, which can
weigh up to 300 pounds, associate with females only
in the breeding season, which extends from mid-fall to
early winter. Other than in the breeding season, both
sexes remain exclusively separate. Almost all males
engage in homosexual courting and copulation. The
males who do not participate in homosexual mating
have been labeled by scientists as ÒeffeminateÓ. These
ÒeffeminateÓ males do not live with the males, but
with the females. These males refuse mounting by
other males (Hogg 1984). In this case, the male sheep
who do not exhibit homosexual behavior within their
species are considered deviant. Such examples of
species exhibiting homosexual behavior have become
more prevalent as more research has been amassed.
A review of biological literature featured more than
100 mammalian species that exhibited homosexual
behavior (Bagemihl 1999). Roughgarden holds the
viewpoint that homosexuality is a variation within a
limitless range of genetic diversity and is not merely a
deviation from heterosexual behavior, but is rather a
legitimate genetic variation.
Having addressed the evolutionary theory
behind sexual reproduction as well as some prevalent
behaviors discussed from ethological observation,
we are now able to discuss the scientiÞc research
conducted with homosexual humans and the
implications of such research. In a study published
in 1993 by Simone LeVay, LeVay found a difference
in size of the interstitial nuclei of the anterior
hypothalamus, a part of the brain more commonly
referred to as INAH. After dissecting the brains of
homosexual and heterosexual men, and heterosexual
women, LeVay found that one of the interstitial nuclei
known as INAH 3 was, on average, two to three
times larger in heterosexual men than in women.
He also found that in gay men, INAH 3 was, on
average, the same size as in the women.The Þndings
show that gay and straight men differ in the central
neuronal mechanisms that regulate sexual behavior
(LeVay 1993). However, LeVayÕs Þndings have been
challenged due to the fact that all of the male subjects
had died of AIDS, making it impossible to determine
whether the neural tissue was smaller due the viral
infection or due to genetic predisposition.
One of the major questions pertaining to the
origin and causation of homosexuality pertains to
whether or not it is an inherited trait. In a study
conducted on monozygotic and dizygotic twins,
scientists found a 52 percent likelihood that a
male homosexual monozygotic twin would have
homosexual twin brother. It was also found that
there to be a 22 percent likelihood that the dizygotic
twin would have a homosexual brother (Bailey &
Pillard 1991). Evidence concludes that although it
is likely that there are genetic inßuences on sexual
orientation, genetics cannot explain sexual orientation
as simplistic common inheritance (Murphy 1997).
Having not found a speciÞed causal link between
genetics and homosexuality, the question arises then,
why do homosexual behaviors keep resurfacing,
regardless of heterosexual precursors? Many
developmental, social and clinical psychological
theories refute the idea that there is a direct genetic
link between heredity and homosexuality. Rather,
these psychological theories seek to identify the
various social and relationship roles, along with the
ideation of sexual orientation, in order to explain
various motivating factors of homosexual behavior.
Several theories concerned with subconscious
drives and motives have been implemented in
psychology texts, many of them focusing on Freudian
views of sexual motivation. One of these views is that
of the Òcastration complexÓ, which postulates that the
males upon discovering that his mother has no penis,
develops the subconscious fear of losing his own
penis, which in turn forces him to turn to other men
for Òsex-withsafety.Ó This view is still exists among devout
followers of Freudian psychoanalysis; other views
range from infantile Þxations to smothering mothers
(Tripp 1975).
A great deal of psychological literature regarding
male homosexuality is concerned with the issue of
masculine identity. Joseph Nicolosi (1991) stressed
that the root of male homosexuality was caused by
the inability of the male to fully acquire a masculine
identity. Nicolosi states that it is necessary for the
male to identify with the father, separate himself
from the mother, and renounce his own feminine
qualities in order to clearly identify as a male. He
states that this is due to the primal afÞnity that is
based in shared masculinity between father and son.
Nicolosi identiÞes various factors contributing to the
lack of a masculine identity; these include a more
rewarding relationship with the mother, the lack of
a salient father, the absence of any father, and failure
to encourage autonomy. As described by Nicolosi,
heterosexual orientation is a bi-product of masculine
identiÞcation; homosexual orientation is due to the
lack of such identiÞcation.
While NicolosiÕs theory appears more valid
than other psychological theories there is still the
question of Òwhat does a masculine identity entail?Ó
Is it concerned with body size and type, relationships
with other males or adequate interest and exhibition
in stereotypic male activities? How masculine does
one have to feel in order to develop a heterosexual
identity? Aside from this, there is the question
regarding the sequence in which masculine identity,
sexual identity, and behavior establish themselves. For
instance, it is not clear if a child develops an identity
as a male from his father prior to the development
of sexual urges, or whether the child exhibits sexual
urges prior to identiÞcation with the father. In other
words, does gender identity lead to sexual identity
and further sexual behavior or is one inclined to
homosexuality prior to the development of gender
identity and further sexual identity?
These are questions that are difÞcult to answer
due to the difÞculty of testing gender identity
or sexual identity. These terms are not rooted in
biological schemas, but are social terms used in
identiÞcation and categorization. While biological
science is concerned with genetics physiological
structures and mechanisms that may identify
causation, social science is concerned with the
development of relationships and oneÕs interpretation
and identiÞcation with social standards and the roles
that those entail.
In conclusion, the research regarding
homosexuality is far from concurring on any
deÞnitive causal variable. It seems that the sciences
are divided on the root of causation- again Nature
vs. Nurture. Both sides have presented theories
and conducted research; however, it seems that the
biological sciences have shown more validity in their
experimental design and reduction of extraneous
variability. The most promising of all theories seems
to be the redeÞning of sexual selection theory, as
offered by Roughgarden. This would entail redeÞning
the theory of natural selection and its purpose to
Òprune the gene pool of bad diversityÓ, in exchange
for a diversity-afÞrming view of evolution which
functions to Òmaintain the biological rainbow, which
conserves the speciesÓ (Roughgarden 2004). Should
this be accomplished, heterosexuality will have as
much validity as homosexuality, and in need of just as
or as little much explanation.
REFERENCES
Bagemihl. (1999). Biological Exhuberance, pp. 269-476.
Bailey, J. Michael & Richard C. Pillard. (1991). A
Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 48: 1089-96.
Baird, Robert M. & M. Katherine Baird (Edts). (1995).
Homosexuality: Debating the Issues. NY, NY:
Prometheus Books.
Darwin, C.R. (1899). On the origin of species by means
of natural selection (6th edition.). Akron, OH:
Werner.
Hogg, J.T. (1984). Mating in bighorn sheep: Multiple
creative male strategies, Science 225: 526-29.
Krogh, David. (2005). Biology: A Guide to the Natural
World (3rd edition.). NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
LeVay, Simon. (1993). The Sexual Brain. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Murphy, Timothy, F. (1997). Gay Science. NY:
Columbia University Press.
Nicolosi, Joseph. (1991). Reparative Therapy of Male
Homosexuality: A clinical Approach. Northvale,
NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Petri, Herbert L., Govern, John M. (2004). Motivation:
Theory, Research, and Applications (5th edition.).
Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Roughgarden, Joan. (2004). EvolutionÕs Rainbow.
Berkley and Los Angles: University of California
Press.
Tripp, C.A. (1975). The Homosexual Matrix. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.