The human brain, as is well known, is a remarkably complex organ. It is, in fact, the most complex object currently known to mankind. In addition, it has the distinction of driving and directing the activity of every single human being on this planet. Enter into this complex organ a tangled web of attractions and drives that pushes nearly every one of us to complete our most basic biological function: passing our genes on to the next generation. Layer atop this millennia of social customs, expectations, mores and taboos, and you have the fantastically misunderstood and oft-disdained subject that is sexual orientation.
The topic has taken up new meaning and prevalence over the last few decades in the West. According to Gallup polling, in 1978, only 13% of U.S. citizens believed sexual orientation was a condition one was born with or into. Yet, as of 2013, that number has increased to 47%. This change comes in lieu of remarkable social change on the subject, and substantial scientific advancement in understanding of it. It is now commonly believed, as this paper will argue, sexual orientation is a product of complex interactions between genetics, developmental hormones at various stages, and various degrees of social constructs and interactions that inform those determining and understanding their own orientation.
According to the American Psychological Association, "Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction that one feels toward men, toward women or toward both. Although sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, it is generally discussed in terms of heterosexual — attraction to the other sex — homosexual —attraction to the same sex — and bisexual —attraction to both sexes." This topic, by its very nature, is a complicated one. Sexual orientation doesn’t even require sexual activity, and those that have had same-sex encounters very often consider themselves heterosexual, and vice versa. It is a very personal and subjective subject, made all the more difficult to define by the lack of any one obvious culprit for these discrepancies.
Many differing theories exist around sexual orientation, and how it manifests as it does. Back in the 90s, and to a degree continuing to this day, the talk was heavily focused around a “gay gene” or group thereof that led to one being born bi or homosexual. Evidence has mounted around either ‘traditional’ genetics or epigenetics, how the genetic code is expressed in a given individual, being a major component of sexual orientation, but no specific group or common answer has been found. In addition, it is now commonly held genetics is only one part of the overall picture.
According to Scientific American, “What you have learned about homosexuality as you were growing up will affect whether you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be desirable or disgusting. Some people might argue that if you are “genetically gay” but the thought of homosexuality nauseates you, then you just haven’t accepted the fact that you really are gay. That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference is purely biological; therefore, it has no place in a discussion about the possible causes of homosexuality." This thought-process rings true to an extent, in cultures where bi-or-homosexuality is common, accepted or expected, such as Classical Greece, such behavior was much more common. Yet, in all recorded cultures at all known times, there have always been a sizable portion of the adult population that was exclusively heterosexual, and a smaller portion solely homosexual.
So, we are left with both genetic influences and social contributors as components of one’s discovered sexual orientation, but lack a conclusive or final culprit. Into this arena enters hormones and neurotransmitters, and the pivotal role they play in physical and sexual development during several key phases of human growth. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America rather plainly stated, “A role for serotonin in male sexual preference was recently uncovered by our finding that male mutant mice lacking serotonin have lost sexual preference. Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference." So, at least in mice, serotonin appears to have a notable effect on sexual interest.
Meanwhile, during a separate series of tests, LiveScience claims, “When the researchers injected a compound into these mice to restore neurotransmitter levels, they found that the animals mounted females more than males. But too much serotonin reduced male-female mounting, suggesting that the amount of this chemical must stay within a certain range to foster heterosexual rather than homosexual behaviors." Thus, serotonin appears to have a substantial sway over sexual interest and behavior. Once again, however, this was only tested in mice.
Another potent theory surrounding the issue regards what is known as the Fraternal Birth Order Effect, possibly increasing the likelihood of homosexual behavior by approximately 30% per older brother a young male has. According the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), “Later fraternal birth order (FBO) is a well-established correlate of homosexuality in human males and may implicate a maternal immunization response in the feminization of male sexuality. This has led to the suggestion that FBO may relate to other markers of male sexual orientation which are robustly sexually dimorphic."
At the end of the day, the current scientific landscape points to sexual orientation being a mixed and complex issue. During embryonic development, the human body has several ‘sensitive phases’ that allow the body to be told how to develop, sexually and otherwise. This may very well play a large role in determining long-term sexual orientation. Then again, so may underlying genetics, and epigenetics, childhood experiences, and culture. In all likelihood, all of these elements play a role in shaping a given individual’s expression of sexuality.
So, what we are left with may seem something of a frustrating hodgepodge of leads that ultimately lead nowhere, but that isn’t strictly-speaking true. It is commonly understood that genetics influence predispositions, and epigenetics how this is expressed. Neuroendocrine influences likely pull more than their weight in this category, while society and psychological development may often fill in the blanks. A fuller picture has thus begun to emerge, and looks far more satisfying in this light.
Regardless of the reason, however, a more important point should be made here. As was elegantly said in Scientific American, “Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure." In my view, as saddening as it is to need to say, this is exactly as it should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment