On The Many Variables Affecting Sexual Orientation

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.

The Essence of American Politics

It's been over two years since I've posted anything on this blog, and over three since any sort of political topic has emerged. Yet, I find myself interested on doing just that: Commenting on the state of our nation and government as I currently view it.

To begin, since I last posted I've rejected my involvement with the Republican party, realigning as a disenchanted independent with a mixture of libertarian and socialist leanings. So be aware, this will not be partisan propaganda, but a general rant against the 'system.'

If you haven't already seen the documentary, "Inequality for All" by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, I highly recommend it, as it lays out much of what I'm about to argue in beautiful detail.

Where many, particularly those on the political right, see government involvement as the problem, I see it as the sabotaged solution. It is well understood that the primary political concept behind representative democracy is that of power residing with the people (the Latin terms from which we derive the word republic, res publica, in fact means 'public affair'), the government being the representation of the people's will. As such, when our government goes awry, it is our responsibility to bring it to heel, to bend it to our collective will and assert our authority over it. We are not doing this, and haven't been effectively doing so for decades. Thus, what we see now is closer to that of plutocratic oligarchy, or rule by a wealthy few.

Terrible recent Supreme Court decisions the likes of Citizens United, McCutcheon and Hobby Lobby are exacerbating the problem, and it's about time we collectively 'wake up'. We the People need to once again see our government as truly ours, its primary purpose to provide for the people before the interests of those who saw fit to effectively purchase our system. Despite the misinformation, corruption and ineffective spending habits such programs are oft known for, we need to first view Medicare, Social Security, public universities, public health services and similar institutions as ours, causes we collectively chose to contribute to, and react to our government accordingly. The progressive tax rates, introduction of the minimum wage, public services and infrastructure projects of the New Deal and Great Society modern Koch-bothers-inspired libertarians and tea-party-ers appear to disdain were, in point of fact, products of a far superior age in American politics.

As many know, following the second World War, the American middle class expanded profoundly. College graduation rates soared, home ownership skyrocketed and the very basis of modern middle class living was built on the subsidized education, housing and interstate system of the ingenious, notably socialist-inspired New Deal of the FDR era. American buying power boomed throughout the post-war period all the way up to 1978, when a mere handful years after the dollar was taken off the gold standard (official in 1973), inflation, falling union participation, poor economic policies on the part of the federal government and the altogether falling out of favor of FDR-inspired policies led to the Reagan-esque, pro-big business, ridiculously out-of-balance spending and wealth inequality we see today.

From systematically lessening funding for everything from Veteran's Affairs to higher education and public health services the likes of the FDA and CDC for years, our government, particularly the right as of late, remains determined to tell us that cutting such spending is in our best interest, yet condemns these same institutions when they fail to act as desired. Proclaiming the injustice of ineffective government while extolling the 'virtues' of private industry, many of our elected officials would and do prevent effective public services (and by extension public support for those services) for the purposes of their donors and agendas, rather than legitimately serving the People.

We can apparently afford to launch poorly-planned, sustained wars for over a decade, subsidize every major industry from oil to pharmaceuticals to the point of many such companies paying a negative tax rate and even bail out a prolifically corrupt financial system with tax-payer funds. Yet, we can't any longer afford to properly fund our universities, public health organizations or veterans whom fought for us in said wars? It couldn't be much more clear wealthy donors and political maneuvering take precedence over the People.

To summarize, both primary political parties are generally terrible at a federal (and often state) level. A number of ill-advised Supreme Court decisions made over several decades has allowed corporate America to dominate our government in a manner not seen since the early 1900s. Wealth inequality is at levels not seen since before the Great Depression, supposedly tax-and-spend policies are not aimed at the middle and working classes to anywhere near the degree they were in decades past, yet we're still told so emphatically that government is the problem. Ultimately, it's not: we're the problem.

We have not held our government accountable, and we've allowed our major media networks to convince us we should be fighting with each other over far less important issues. We the People must begin to see our current political environment as a contest between the majority of us and the billionaire, power-broker classes, not between Democrats and Republicans or conservatives and liberals. Our great grandparents figured this out back in the 1930s (it only took the Great Depression), and after proper policies were in place we experienced the emergence of the largest and most prolific middle class in the world. I want that back, we all want it back, and taking our government back is how we start.