Download sexual orientation

SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Usually


seen as dichotomous:
hetero/homo
seen as discrete traits
 Hetero:

“normal”  heterosexism
 Homo:

“abnormal”
 Bisexual:

???
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Small

1-10%
 But

% of population:
vast ripple effects:
family, friends, etc.
•
•
•
•
•
•
rejection
discrimination, persecution
assault, death
broken homes
trauma
suicide
SEXUAL ORIENTATION


Homophobia:
Cultural attitude based on religious teachings
Freud: Fear of own homosexual tendencies
Adams, Wright and Lohr (1996) gave test to measure
homophobia to male college students







Group 1: high scores
Group 2: low scores
All participants were hooked to plethysmograph that measured
erection
They all watched film clips of hetero, gay and lesbian sex
Group 1: 54% had increased penile erection to gay (male) tapes
Group 2: 24%
Conclusion: Freud was on the right track
SEXUAL ORIENTATION

In order to study homosexuality we need:
1. Head count: who is? need a definition
2. Definition
a. self-label
Can contradict each other
b. behaviour
c. how often? when?
d. loose boundaries: gays have sex with the opposite sex;
heterosexuals have sex with the same sex
e.g. Tea room men, Indonesian men
3. Causes
SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Gender differences
In an experiment heterosexual and homosexual
males and females watched videos of
a. heterosexual sex
b. male gay sex
c. lesbian sex
d. nude males
e. nude females
f. bonobos having sex
The participants were hooked to a
plethysmograph and were asked to report
verbally when they were aroused.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Results:
a. heterosexual males became aroused when
watching heterosexual sex, lesbian sex and
nude females
b. homosexual males became aroused when
watching male homosexual sex and nude
males
c. both homosexual and heterosexual males
had a 100% concordance between
plethysmograph results and self report of
arousal
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
d. both heterosexual and homosexual women
were aroused by all the videos according to
the plethysmograph, but their self reports
were at odds with objective data: women are
not aware when they are aroused.
e. males were not aroused by the bonobo
video, females were!
Another gender difference:
a. more women self-label bisexual than males
b. more women switch sexual orientation over
their life times
SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Cannot look for THE cause. INTERACTIONS
 Individual differences in etiology
 Circumstances:


jail, boarding school
Cross-cultural evidence:

prescribed homosexuality at certain age-stage
Definition found in many cultures:


gay man is the one that is penetrated. (Anal
intercourse the norm in most countries)
ethnic minorities in Canada are more in the closet
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Possible







variables involved:
genes
hormones in utero
subtle intrauterine interactions
brain: timing
early influences
identity problems
social stereotypes, prejudice
SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Retrospective memory:


Alternate reality a common developmental
theme:


adopted, Martian, different
Early attractions, crushes:




unreliable
heavily shaped by culture
Selective memory
Children “bisexual” (Freud)
Capable of arousal with either sex – can later
remember “always” being attracted to same sex
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Bisexuality:
 If

based on one encounter (at least):
33%
 Higher
sex drive, more sexual activity in
general, including masturbation. More high
risk behaviour.
 Majority married (heterorole)
 Sexual pleasure oriented regardless of
other person’s sex
SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Danger:

71% of bisexual men do not tell their female partners:
• STDs – AIDS

Adolescent males:


Difficulty:


very common transitional stage
rejected by both hetero and homo. Called fencesitters, some feel pressured to go in either direction
Many gays reject the concept, saying that bis
are misguided homosexuals
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 So:
 numbers
difficult to estimate
 definition:

fuzzy
 causes:

flimsy support for several hypotheses
 real

danger:
prejudice
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 THEORETICAL
EXPLANATIONS:
 Genetic:

More concordance in identical twins, but does
not rule out environment – otherwise it would
be 100% concordance instead of 52%.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Prenatal


factors:
No agreement in different studies,
contradictory data
Hypothesized:
• severe maternal stress (no effects)
• also, maternal stress is retrospective
• no tally of stressed expectant mothers who had
heterosexual children
• very high levels of estrogen  lesbian offspring
• birth order: males with several older brothers 
gay
• some studies show a complicated relationship
between birth order and handedness (right or left
handed)
• some found a correlation between orientation and
finger size: index and ring finger ratio or 2D:4D
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS (Cont’d):
 Brain differences:





Small sample. Non-comparable: some died of
AIDS. Is the difference due to orientation or to
disease and its treatment? LeVay
Other differences found, but all in adults after the
fact (chicken/egg)
Would need to look at newborn brains and if
differences found follow-up into adulthood and
observe sexual orientation
Endocrine imbalance:

No differences found.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Learning:

Possible in some cases. Personal negative
experience could override social
reinforcement patterns. Also, peer group can
provide more reinforcement than society at
large.
 Sociological

theories:
Importance of labels. Labels affect perception.
Perception affects behaviour. This can
influence self-perception, leading to selflabeling.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Reiss:


Rigidly polarized societies have higher
incidence of same-gender sex. But only
applies to males.
Another scenario:
• very permissive societies, experimentation OK.
Bem: The Exotic Becomes Erotic
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Bem’s Theory – criticisms:
 There is NO abundant evidence of inborn
aggression and activity levels by gender,
it’s all contaminated by culture.
 Homosocial activities are mostly a cultural
phenomenon.
 Children who don’t fit the gender
stereotypes are clearly told they are odd
and wrong.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Bem’s Theory – criticisms (Cont’d):
 Many gays are “gender typical” in their
interests, appearance, etc. Bem fell for the
effeminate guy/macho woman stereotype
of gays.
 Many atypical (i.e., boys who played with
dolls, girls who played with trucks) kids do
not go on to become gay.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION


Asexual category:
Not attracted to either sex. Non-existent sex
drive.
1. Hormonal deficiency or imbalance
2. Central nervous system misconnection
3. Possible early trauma: childhood sexual abuse
4. Pituitary tumors
5. Asperger’s (autism spectrum)
6. Personality disorder (schizoid)
7. Late bloomers
Research is scarce
Can engage in sex usually to please partner.
Some engage in masturbation.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Freud:
undifferentiated at birth
(polymorphous perverse)


Phallic stage: Oedipus/Electra
Identification with same sex parent
 Kinsey:
continuum
 Very complex issue
 All beings potential for both
 Embryological/developmental parallel
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 Situational
variables
 Several possible ways to acquire sexual
orientation
 Basic human needs shared by all:


sensual/sexual fulfillment
socio-emotional connection
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Bell and Weinberg typology of gays (sample
of 979)
Close coupled:

one long-time partner, marriage type
relationship, few problems, few sex partners,
infrequent cruising.
Open

coupled:
steady live-in partner but also many outside
ones, lots of cruising. More likely to have
problems and to regret being gay.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Bell and Weinberg typology of gays (sample
of 979) (Cont’d)
Functional:

not coupled, high number of sex partners, few
problems. Younger, high sex drive, few
regrets.
Dysfunctional:

not coupled, high number of partners, many
sex problems as well as psychological
problems, tense, unhappy, depressed.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Bell and Weinberg typology of gays (sample
of 979) (Cont’d)
Asexual:

low in sexual interest and activity, less
exclusively gay, very secretive, loners,
highest incidence of suicide thoughts.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith
 In depth interviews comparing gays/
lesbians and straights.
 No support for psychoanalytic, learning or
sociological (labelling) theories.
 They speculate a biological basis but have
no data.