Biological And Social Effects On Sexual Orientation

From birth, one's sexuality is shaped by society. Cultures institute behaviors that are to be seen as the societal norms, which work to constantly reinforce societal expectations of how genders should act in relation to one another. Although some may argue that one's sexuality is an innate characteristic resulting from genetic makeup, there is a large amount of evidence pointing to its social construction instead. Through the power differences between males and females, established gender roles, and drastic economic shifts, society establishes sexuality and reinforces the behaviors that are expected of its citizens.

One theory that many psychologist and scientist are trying to prove is that homosexuality has a fundamental biological basis. Similar to most mammalian species, humans at conception are females (McKnight 22). Toward the end of the first trimester is when the babies with a “male genetic message” begin to have small doses of two hormones, chorionic gonadotropin and luteinizing hormone, which start the altering process of the gonads into testes (McKnight 22). The hormones two jobs are to control the sexual development and control their function (McKnight 22). When the brain starts to develop masculine characteristics and lose the feminine characteristics, the processes are separate and occur at different

A pattern emerges where the scholarly literature exploring this topic is largely focused on males. Reason being is that it appears that males are the sex who are predominantly homosexual in their orientation (LeVay & Baldwin, 2012). However, the sensitivity within the discourse of sexual orientation arises when it is debated upon whether one 's sexual preference is innate at birth, hence a force of nature or biology, or if it is a result of culture, nurture or environmental factors (Emmanuele et al., 2010). Furthermore, an experimental design will be proposed to further examine this topic. Comparing the three chosen studies, it is evident that a biological and endocrinological perspective does account for sexual orientation (Kraemer et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2008). Of the studies that currently exist on this topic, data shows that prenatal testosterone levels are indicative of sexual orientation (Kraemer et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2008). This paper addresses a topic that is relevant in today 's society; a topic that has, for the most part, been written off as having any scientific roots (Emmanuele et al., 2010). This paper counters that belief and in reading this essay, it will be evident that biology and endocrinology have a much stronger influence on sexual orientation than previously thought.

Human sexuality is a common phrase for all, and anything, pertaining to the feelings and behaviors of sex for the human race. Sexuality has been a topic that has been discussed and studied for as far back as 1000 years B.C. and is still being studied today. As the discussion of sexuality has progressed through history, theories have been created based on research and experiments that scholars have implemented, based on their own perceptions of human behavior. Out of the many theories that pose to explain sexual behavior, Sexuality Now explained ten that are seemed to be the most overlapped, and built off of theories. Of these theories, two that were discussed in the text were the behavioral and sociological theory. These two theories cover some of the basic ideas of what could possibly influence a person’s sexuality.

It is a fair assumption to say that America is approaching a new age in understanding and accepting the many variations of human sexual orientation. More same-sex couples have fostered children than ever before in our nation 's history. Institutions such as military and professional sports have (slowly but surely) began to accept openly gay members. Most importantly, a recent amendment to the Marriage Act of 1961 now defines marriage as a union of two people; an amendment which removed the prohibition of same-sex marriages. These landmarks in the progression of social awareness surrounding sexual orientation are derivative of scientific findings disputing the "choice" theory. As outlined in Simon LeVay 's book, Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, the result of someone 's sexual orientation "emerges from the prenatal sexual differentiation of the brain" (LeVay 2011: 271) What LeVay means in this context is, "whether a person ends up gay or straight depends in large part on how this process of biological differentiation goes forward, with the lead actors being genes, sex hormones, and the brain systems" (LeVay 2011: 271). Much research, proven and theoretical, has been done on the concept of what makes people gay. Many factors surrounding socialization in regards to sexual orientation have undergone extensive scientific scrutiny (LeVay 2011: 77). Although there is evidence that suggests social and environmental elements play a role in sexual orientation, it is

If sexual orientation is something that we can’t change or choose, then how are these specific preferences such as heterosexuality and homosexuality created? How does one person progress to either heterosexuality or homosexuality? Studies showed that there were genetic factors linked to influencing sexual orientation in males before they were born by increasing the female reproductive capacity in mothers during multiple births. (Iemmole, Ciani, 2008: 393) Though that doesn’t mean that there technically is a “gay gene” that has been discovered, just that several human genome studies has suggested promising areas of research that are pointing to that direction. (Iemmole, Ciani, 2008: 393) With more

The nurture concept of homosexuality include elements which influence a human’s sexual relationship likes social, parental and environment variables. A total opposite from the idea of the nature concept, a nurtured homosexual person is one that is “made” gay or lesbian.

Homosexuality is at the front lines of the nature versus nurture debate. Many studies have been conducted, but a clear cause has yet to be found. Anti-homosexuals, consisting mainly of religious groups, believe that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, and can be changed. Because of their beliefs, homosexuality must be a learned behavior. Whether homosexuality is biological or learned behavior is still a mystery, but scientists are finding more evidence to suggest the former.

There are multiple theories people hold on how they believe homosexuality started or is generally caused. However, after multiple studies and ongoing research the likelihood that it is nature, rather than nurture, based is going strong. Although, as of now, there has been no exact consensus among researchers, after examining possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and/or cultural influences, to prove that homosexuality is completely one or the other, but it is usually found that people cannot choose their sexual orientation, but rather only

The nature and nature of homosexuality is heavily debated. Some people believe that homosexuality is biologically determined and others believe it’s base on ones environment. This topic can be argue to be base on both nature and nurture. Studies conducted in the past decades support both the biological and environmental aspect of homosexuality.

The world has come very far with all the dramatic changes we have faced over the years. Wouldn’t you agree? As much change as the world has been through there are still numerous social problems that still exist in society today. Amongst those numerous social problems, sexual orientation and inequality stand out to me. Research from biology, psychology, and sociology is where our understanding of sexual orientation comes from. There are two hypothetical theories researchers have discovered examining the biological basis toward sexual orientation. One concept is the neurohormonal theory, biologist contend that homosexuality is caused by abnormal sex hormone levels in utero. The alternative theory is based on behavioral genetics, determining the source and magnitude of genetic impact on sexual orientation. This theory suggested the concept that gay men were genetically female. Later this theory was proven to be false. Homosexuality was considered as a pathology or mental illness. Not every psychologists agreed with that perspective. A researcher by the name of Havelock Ellis stated that homosexuality was congenital and for that reason it could not be considered as a disease. Sigmund Freud another theorist had the concept that everyone is born bisexual and that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is developed through social and personal experience. Ellis and Freud both concurred that homosexuality was not a mental illness. Despite these researchers’ opinions in 1973,

Science is uncovered origins a lot of things over the centuries and the human created much great inventions and even explored the surface of the moon; however, one question still on everyone’s mind and science may have solved one of greatest mysteries yet which is: how did homosexuality and heterosexuality evolve? Many psychologist, biologist and scientist may agree with sexual orientation is output from a combination of biological, hormonal, environmental and emotional factors and those many factors that influence to a development of human sexual orientation. However, being homosexual or bisexual is not mentally ill or abnormal in certain ways, although sexual minority is part of social problems that makes output from misinformation or prejudicial attitude. Diversity in sexual orientation has been a subject that has been seen in different perspectives by the different people (LeVay, 2010). Today there are the homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals orientated people are forming a part of our society. This paper conduct an overall study of important and strong factors and provides accurate information and explanation for those who want to better understand development of sexual orientation.

It has long been debated where our sexual orientation comes from, particularly whether its biological or social forces driving these behaviors. In regards to homosexuality and bisexuals, some have argued that it may be a choice that these individuals are making.(Levay 2012: 41)Some have even said it is a mental disorder that one can recover from, but there is plenty of data that says otherwise.(Levay 2012: 41)(Levay 2012: 65) I believe diverse sexual orientations develop in humans due to sex hormones during fetal life, gene influences, and other effects such as birth order influences. I’ve come to this conclusion based on the narrative provided via Dr. Simon LeVay’s book Gay Straight, and the Reason Why, and the research that has been compiled showing strong influences from a multitude or reasons. I will also be looking at a research paper by Francesca Iemmola and Andrea Camperio Ciani, who looked into genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men. It is clear there are gender differences between men and women, and this is probably one of the strongest indicators that hormones can affect the outcome of variations in gender traits.

Throughout history there has been speculation about what influences sexuality in men and woman. Is sexual orientation biological or cultural in nature? There is a common misconception that sexual identity operate in parallel with gender roles( Sell, 2005 as cited in Wilkinson & Roys, 2005, p.65). Scholars have not came to an agreement regarding what actually comprise a person’s sexual orientation, however a sexual orientation has been deemed a cumulative experience and interaction of emotional and sexual feelings towards one or both genders (Wilkinson & Roys, 2005, p.65). The paper provides provides some clues as to what factors influence sexual orientation in men and woman.

The question of what causes some people to be sexually attracted to members of their own gender generates many different answers. In recent years, startling new research (Barinaga, 1993, p.17) has indicated that homosexuality is possibly inherited and determined by biological differences in Brain structure and genes. This study raises an interesting question: If homosexuality is hereditary, is there any basis for societal discrimination against something innate? If it is nature, it is good. If it is good, it should be accepted. A genetic component in sexual orientation would send a message to homosexuals and the society that homosexuality is not a fault, and not the fault of anyone other than nature. Gays and lesbians are born in nature, just like some people who are inherited left-handed gene from their parents.