First and foremost, I want to thank you all for your comments and questions left here on the blog and via Facebook and Twitter following yesterday's post, "Let's Talk About Sex." Many of you brought up valid points that I am quite interested in discussing further. Today, I thought it would be a good idea to focus on the question of whether or not sexuality is innate.
In order to have a reasonable discussion, I think we all need to agree on a good operational definition of what sexuality and innate really mean. Mosby's Medical Dictionary defines sexuality as "the sum of physical, functional, and psychologic attributes that are expressed by one's gender identity and sexual behavior, whether or not related to the sex organs or procreation." Something that is innate is, of course, possessed at birth, inborn, inherent, congenital, and hereditary. The question at hand, then, is sexuality innate? is really a nature vs. nurture discussion of whether or not sexual orientation, sexual attitudes, sexual proclivities, etc. have a strong biological, physiological, and genetic component and/or whether the environment and personal experience contribute to shaping these things.
As a brief aside, I think it's important to mention that in old medical and psychology textbooks (published prior to about 1970) sexuality was rarely discussed. When it was mentioned, the language was very man-centric. At that time, male pronouns referred to both genders. Mankind meant humankind. Men meant people. Although this was arguably just a grammatical convention of the time, it was reflected by the fact that female attitudes and sexual responses were basically left out of the conversation. The same was true for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender attitudes. When discussed, they were viewed as a dysfunction or perversion if discussed at all.
Conventional wisdom in the old-school psychological sciences was that homosexuality was caused by nurture. Overbearing mothers and distant fathers were thought to induce homosexual tendencies in children, according to early psychoanalytic theory. Today, this is a laughable assumption, rooted firmly in nothing. No published studies support this claim. In fact, recent studies are revealing that genes, environment, brain structure, and hormones all seem to have a mixed role in sexual orientation and preferences. We know that sexuality has a strong physiological component, and we can study this through twin studies, investigation of genetic markers, and exploration of sexual orientation and behavior in nature (animals in the wild or captivity).
To end today's discussion, I want to draw everyone's attention to a comment left by HuffPost community member Tracy Fortune (see image below).
I hope this comment inspires more of you to join in the conversation. Tomorrow, lets continue the nature-nurture discussion about human sexuality by taking at look at some recent evidence-based conclusions.
See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts: www.huffingtonpost.com/news/talk-nerdy-to-me
Like Cara Santa Maria on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Cara-Santa-Maria
Follow Cara Santa Maria on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CaraSantaMaria
“I Was Born this Way”: Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter ...
Language Log » Innate sex differences: science and public opinion
I believe I'm a nature lesbian - I have always been attracted to women. I tried to convince myself I could be in a happy and healthy sexual relationship with a man, and I just can't. The thought, and action of being with a man sexually leaves me feeling uncomfortable and slightly nauseated.
"Why is it so important to find the reason for a completely benign phenomenon?"
Shouldn't the main focus be on the reasons why some people feel such a strong objection to any sexual orientation that differs from their own?
Nature or nurture? ;-)
Now if we tried to narrow down her chosen "operational definition", then to claim that each of the possible narrowings is 'nature' or 'nurture' would be a more interesting proposition, but it could still be too controversial for rational discussion in this or any other Internet forum.
As for "strongest natural instinct", try going without food for three days and see if you still believe that.
Some swingers need their climax to satify and fulfill a chapter in the book of revelations. I wonder if this can be included in the total entertainment reality check.
Robben
Unfortunately, this 'meme' in Christian ethics has been obscured by a new misunderstanding of Redemption and Atonement, which APPEARS to render morality unnecessary. But it has only been obscured, not obliterated.
So now returning to the unobscured principle, it is impossible that God commands any man to be an angel, and not a man. Likewise, if it were true that people were "born gay" and that 'by nature', it would then be impossible to claim that God commanded against "being gay".
But the careful reader will have noticed that there are several 'outs' here. One could claim that the commandment is against the action, not the inclination, in which case, there is nothing wrong with being gay as long as you don't act on it. But it is not just the gays who find this option unattractive.
Another 'out' is to claim (predictably), that it is NOT by nature. See the APA statement a few posts below.
Sure, and they could refuse to eat or breathe, too.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
But there is one very interesting aspect of this statement that deserves more attention: the claim that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation". This too sounds accurate, but easily misunderstood. It does NOT mean that those people had no choice about it. It only means they were not aware of it.
The two are NOT the same. Amazingly, people can be unaware of the operation of their own will, since understanding it well demands a degree and level of introspection that very few even attempt.
http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.short
Ropinirole, used to treat Parkinson's disease, has a dose dependent action that causes hypersexuality, overeating, and gambling in some people.
This indicates a strong biochemical basis involving dopamine, with brain localization to specific structures.
One of many reasons why your answer is wrong is that the question is poorly put: 'sexuality' covers too many different things, even including 'gender', which at least as the APA defines it is certainly learned behavior. Another reason is that there can be no scientific basis for the claim that reasoning ability is 'secondary'. There are other reasons, but I won't go into them just yet.