Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.