Let's talk about sex again (this entry follows two other ones on the nature of sexuality: 13 October 2003 and 20 June 2002). This time I want to work a theory I have on the origins of sexual orientation—a particular environmental influence—and then tie it in with the idea that sexual orientation has genetic components.

I have a strong affinity for Freud's belief that we are all born "polymorphously perverse"—that is, when we are born, we are sexual beings who have the capacity to become attracted to anything and anyone (indeed, a child can become as sexually attracted to a human being as to something as inanimate as a paperclip). What determines the over all direction of this general sexual energy? What forces determine our general "sexual orientation"?

It seems to me that rather than human beings following their innate sexual attractions and desires, these desires and attractions run in the service of our own individual, psychological or biological needs. For instance, if a person has a particularly strong psychological need to nurture others, s/he may come to sexualise and become physically attracted to a person who needs nurturing (this sexualisation is made easier when the person to be nurtured is already physically attractive in a more general sense). Let's extend this idea to homosexual desire. In my conversations with gay men (and in my own introspections as a gay man), I notice that some gay men come to sexualise other men who can fulfill for them a particularly strong need to have a brother figure in their lives (something which may have been absent in their early lives). That they are sexually attracted to the men they seek is almost secondary. To my mind, it is as if the general sexual energy of a homosexual who is seeking a brother figure attaches onto men who might fulfill this role, thus helping move the organism move towards those people who will fulfill their deeper psychological needs.

What is particularly interesting—at least in the case of homosexual men—is that once the organism has finally moved towards the person who will be able to fulfill its psychological needs (i.e., when the gay man has finally found another attractive man who can be either his friend or romantic partner), the organism seems on longer to see the other person in a sexual way. The sexual force—once it has finished its job of moving the organism closer to its destination—seems to subside so that it can be used for something else. The friend is no longer sexualised. Indeed, this corresponds to the reality that most of us don't have sexual feelings towards our friends. Such feelings may, of course, develop as the friendship matures (say, into a romantic relationship). But at during the course of the friendship per se, sexual feelings seem to disappear (or at least diminished in intensity).

Much could be said about other types of attractions. If one's basic need is, for example, to have children, then one's general sexual energy will attach to people of the opposite sex, drawing the person closer towards those people with whom they will be able to procreate. General sexual energy can be in the service of innumerable personal and biological needs. Thus these needs direct our sexuality and not vice versa.

This seems to mesh with the finding that—at least for men—homosexuality is genetically determined but will only express itself in the presence of some sort of environmental trigger, which may or may not be present during childhood. I posit that the environmental trigger in question may, indeed, be the basic psychological need(s) which I've mentioned above.

Putting it all together

We could put all the above considerations into a little flowchart, indicating the possible mechanism for development of homosexual (or other) orientation:

Genetic predisposition
+
Some sort of environmental trigger
(eg, the reproductive or psychological
needs I’ve theorised above)
=
Certain hormonal influences on brain
which may cause
↓
Homosexual brain maps (erotic maps)
and homosexual scripts
which may cause
↓
Homosexual desire
and perhaps
homosexual behaviour

If it’s genetic, should we abort babies who we know have "gay genes"?

Well, no, because some evidence suggests that homosexuality is a recessive genetic trait. This may explain why homosexuality remains in the population even though homosexuals do not tend to have children. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the "gay gene" (if, indeed, there is one) may confer some reproductive benefit to straight men, but cause homosexuality in men who have two gay gene alleles. If the gene confers some sort of reproductive advantage, then trying to get rid of it in the population (through abortions, eugenics) may interfere in some way with a normal, healthy reproductive mechanism in nature. Much as we may be messing around with nature’s flora and fauna by introducing genetically modified foods into the plant kingdom, we may be messing around with the flora and fauna of human reproduction by selectively aborting babies whom we believe may have so-called gay genes.

If it is caused by certain psychological "needs" or "lacks", should we attempt to change the environment in order to get those needs met?

No, for a few reasons:

1. How would we know ahead of time what those needs might be? They seem to develop really early in life (at about the same time that a person’s basic personality is developing). People aren’t even able to verbalise these needs at this age, so how would someone be able to intervene in order to get these needs met before the needs become sexualised.


2. Who is to say that a person’s procreative needs are more important than a person’s psychological needs? In our society, we privilege procreation, even though psychological needs are more important for some people (especially when we consider that these needs may come right out of their normal, healthy individual personality or perceptions, which are intrinsic parts of who they are and, hence, cannot—and should not—be changed).


3. Just because someone has a particular psychological or other "need", doesn’t mean that it represents some sort of "lack" or that there is something inherently wrong with this need. The psychological needs which may underly homosexual preferences are on the same continuum of normal needs that procreative needs are on. Thus, they are as equally important as procreative needs, and thus, should not be changed so as to change sexual orientation.

Why are any of these theories even important?

Indeed, homosexuality doesn't really hurt anyone, so who cares about its causation and about efforts to "fix" it?

But what about the fact that some people are very uncomfortable with their homosexuality? Shouldn't we try to "fix" these people's homosexuality?

My contention here is that discomfort with one's homosexuality is more a social/cultural thing than anything else. Personally, I think that ego-dystonic homosexuality (as it is known technically) seems to be more a result of the conditions of worth that we attach to people ("You must be straight or I won't love you") than of any kind of conflict within the individual over his/her sexual orientation.

What do you think?

So, what do you think of my ideas? Any comments? Incidentally, if you'd like more information on sexual orientation from a psychodynamic perspective, I would highly recommend Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice, by Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I. Downey (Columbia University Press, 2002).

(See also my 13 October 2002 entry on the nature of physical and sexual attraction, my 20 June 2002 entry on sex as a "need", and my 31 October 2003 entry on the nature of physical attractiveness).