In our century, it becomes a kind of spell: your DNA is your destiny.

Over the past several decades, numerous scientists have claimed to discover genetic and neurophysiological explanations for human behavior, including sexual orientation, mental illness, and other traits of the human personality.

But in hindsight, these scientists may have seriously underestimated the complexity of the connections between genes and human behavior - or other parts of the human personality.

On reflection, it is easy to see that claims about the relationship between genes and various aspects of the human personality have two things in common: they almost always carry catchy headlines, but almost never can be verified - in the language of science - "reproduced" - by other researchers.

One of the most resonant claims of the past decade - the claims of different brain structures in gay and heterosexual men - illustrates this well.

In 1991, Simon LeVay, a scientist at the J. Edwards Salk Institute for Biological Research, made a statement that had an international resonance, reporting the discovery of significant structural differences in the structure of the brain in gay and heterosexual men.

Based on an analysis of 41 autopsy brain samples, LeVay reported that individual traits — the center [of speech], the third intermediate nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus — tend to be larger in heterosexual men than in gay men.

But so far, despite the fact that twice the study has been conducted on the same number of brain samples that were analyzed in the study of Levay, the neurophysiologist from New York has not been able to confirm or deny the claims of the Salk scientist.

“I would not go so far as to say that my research was negative. Rather, it could be said that it never finished the matter, ”says W. Bine, a neurophysiologist and psychiatrist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, whose results are scheduled for publication this year in Hormones and Behavior. ...

The news drew a courageous response from LeVay, who is now a freelance science columnist in Southern California. “Of course, I would like to get some serious confirmation,” LeVay said over the phone yesterday. “What I have heard does not contain any significant evidence, and therefore I am naturally disappointed. It remains to wait for the results of further research "

In the early 1990s, the idea that sexual orientation is determined by biological factors became very widespread in the scientific community. However, some scientists, in particular psychiatrist and neurophysiologist William Byne, insist that the presence of a correlation between brain anatomy and genetic factors, on the one hand, and sexual orientation, on the other, does not mean that we can talk about a causal relationship.

The following excerpt from Byne's article argues that our sex drive and behavior are more social than biological.

Human rights activists, faith-based organizations, and all three branches of the US government are debating whether sexual orientation is biologically driven. This discussion is reflected in newspaper and magazine headlines, but behavioral scientists believe the topic is outdated. The main question is not whether biological factors influence sexual orientation, but what exactly they do. All psychological phenomena ultimately depend on biological factors.

Even if the discussion were formulated more precisely, it would still develop in the wrong direction. Most of the links in the chain of reasoning linking biological factors to sexual orientation do not stand up to scrutiny. At the political level, if a society is only tolerant of those nonconformists, whose unusual features are innate or not amenable to change, then it uses an inhuman criterion. Even if people become homosexual solely as a result of a conscious choice of their sexual orientation, attempts to eliminate homosexuality through social and criminal sanctions lead to a devaluation of basic human freedoms and a decrease in human diversity.

Moreover, the idea that homosexuality can be either innate and not amenable to change, or a freely chosen orientation, in turn, is also incorrect. Take, for example, the grizzly sparrow, a bird that can only learn its species song during a limited period of its development. Most sparrows that hear many different songs, including the song of birds of their own species, will learn their specific song, but some will learn a different song. After a bird has a song, it will never forget how to sing it, but it will never learn other songs. Although sexual orientation has nothing to do with imitation, it is clear that behaviors that have been shaped through learning may nevertheless be resistant to change.

Finally, all the current evidence that it is due to innate biological traits is inconsistent. Genetic research inevitably suffers from the disadvantage that it is usually impossible to separate the influence of biological factors from the influence of the environment, as a result of which all attempts to study the heritability of psychological traits come to a standstill. Neurobiological research is based on dubious hypotheses about the existence of differences between the brain of a man and the brain of a woman. The biological mechanisms that have been proposed as explanations for male homosexuality are often impossible to generalize to explain the existence of lesbians (which are generally under-researched). The fact that most biological variables are continuous in nature is inconsistent with the paucity of bisexual adults found in most surveys.

To understand how biological factors influence sexual orientation, you first need to define orientation. Many researchers, in particular Simon LeVay, approach it as a semi-dymorphic trait: men are usually "programmed" to be attracted to women, and women are usually "programmed" to be attracted to men. With this approach, it turns out that homosexual men are programmed according to the female program. Some researchers suggest that biological agents perform this programming, perhaps even before birth; others believe that it occurs after birth and is a reaction to social factors and subjective experience. As a function of the brain, it is undoubtedly related to its structure and physiology, from which it follows that the brain of a homosexual may have some features characteristic of the opposite sex.

The validity of such "intersex" expectations is questionable. First, sexual orientation is not dimorphic; it has many forms. Conscious and unconscious motivation associated with sexual attraction is different, even among people of the same sex and have the same orientation. Different people can arrive at the same relative degree of sexual attraction for men or women as a result of interactions between innumerable experiences (and subjective interpretations of those experiences). Different people can be sexually attracted to men for different reasons; for example, it is impossible to say a priori that everyone who is attracted to men must have a certain brain structure.

The view that gay men are feminized and lesbians are masculinized actually carries much more information about our culture than about the biology of erotic reactions. Some Greek myths claim that heterosexual, not homosexual, desire is of intersex origin: people who experienced sexual desire primarily for their own sex were considered the most masculine men and the most feminine women. And vice versa, if a person was attracted by representatives of the opposite sex, then it was assumed that masculine and feminine principles were mixed in his personality. Classical culture celebrates the homosexual exploits of Zeus, Hercules, and Julius Caesar. As early as 10 years ago (until the missionaries eradicated this practice), Sambia boys in New Guinea developed an attachment to the men with whom they fellatio, and no one considered such behavior to be female. The Sambia people thought that in order to gain strength and energy, it was necessary to swallow sperm.

But the "intersex" hypothesis leads to a more serious problem: it has not been proven that those traits that are allegedly replaced in homosexuals by their versions typical of the opposite sex are generally different in men and women. Of all the alleged sex differences in the human brain that have been reported over the past 100 years, only one is reliably replicable: brain size depends on body size. Thus, the brains of men are usually slightly larger than the brains of women. This situation is in stark contrast to the situation in the animal kingdom, as many researchers have convincingly demonstrated a number of sex differences in the brain of animals.

If the brain is really "tuned" or otherwise programmed for a particular sexual orientation, what factors did this happen? There are three possibilities: the direct model of biological causality suggests that, even before birth, the developing brain is exposed directly to genes, hormones, or other factors that program it for a particular sexual orientation. In contrast, the social learning model assumes that biology prepares a "blank slate" of neural circuits on which experience inscribes orientation. According to the indirect model, biological factors do not "tune" the brain to a certain orientation; instead, they predispose individuals to certain personality traits that influence the relationships and experiences that ultimately define sexuality.

Over the past decades, hypotheses about the influence of biology on sexual orientation have mainly focused on the role of hormones. Scientists once thought that orientation was determined by the levels of androgens and estrogens in an adult, but this hypothesis was not confirmed and was rejected. Since then, researchers have been of the opinion that during the prenatal period, hormones "tune" the brain to a particular sexual orientation.

According to this hypothesis, high prenatal levels of androgens in the corresponding critical period cause heterosexuality in men and homosexuality in women. Conversely, low androgen levels in the fetus lead to homosexuality in men and heterosexuality in women. This hypothesis is based mainly on observations made in rodents: the relationship between male and female patterns of copulatory behavior, which adult animals exhibit, depends on the intake of hormones in the early period of development. Female rodents that were injected with androgens at an early stage of development, compared to normal adult females, exhibit swoops that are more typical of males. Males deprived of androgens by castration during the same critical period exhibit a feminine mating posture called lordosis (back flexion) when swooped down.

Many researchers consider a castrated male rat exhibiting lordosis when bounced on by another male to be homosexual (as is a female rat that bounces on others). However, lordosis is little more than a reflex: the male adopts the same posture when the technician strokes his back. Moreover, a male jumping on another male is considered heterosexual, just as a female exhibiting lordosis when being attacked by another female is considered heterosexual. If we apply the same logic to people, then it turns out that out of two people of the same sex participating in sexual intercourse, only one is homosexual - and which of the members of the couple is him depends on the positions they take.

Early administration of hormones to rodents determines not only their mating patterns, but also the ability of the brain to regulate normal ovarian function. The male rat's brain is unable to respond to estrogens and trigger a chain of events called positive feedback, which culminates in a sharp increase in the concentration of luteinizing hormone in the blood, which in turn causes ovulation. Some researchers, based on this fact, have argued that homosexual men (whose brains are ostensibly insufficiently masculinized) may have stronger feedback reactions than heterosexual men.

This is what two laboratories reported, but carefully planned and conducted research, most notably the work of Louis J.G. Goren of the Free University of Amsterdam, refuted these results. Moreover, it turned out that the positive feedback mechanism is not related to sexual orientation: scientists have since found that the positive feedback mechanism in primates, including humans, is not susceptible to sexual dimorphism. If this mechanism is the same for men and women, then it is rather illogical to assume that it should be “feminized” in homosexual men.

In addition, a direct consequence of the expectation that responses to luteinizing hormone in homosexual men should be feminized is the expectation that they should be “masculinized” in lesbians. If this were true, homosexual women would not have menstruation and would not have children. Proof of the ridiculousness of this idea is that most lesbians have a normal mental cycle and more and more mothers are appearing among them.

If the hypothesis of prenatal hormonal influence were correct, then one would expect that the majority of men with medical syndromes associated with prenatal androgen deficiency would be homosexuals, as well as women who received an excess of androgens prenatally. But this is not the case.

Because androgens are essential for the normal external genitalia of a man, the sex of individuals with these syndromes may not be obvious at birth. Men can be born with effeminate genitals, and women with masculine genitals. Such individuals often require plastic surgery to construct normal-looking genitals, and the decision to raise them as boys or girls sometimes depends not on genetic sex, but on the possibility of genital reconstruction.

The study of the sexual orientation of such individuals, as a rule, confirms the validity of the social learning model. Regardless of their genetic sex and the nature of prenatal hormonal exposure, they usually become heterosexual in relation to the gender in which they were raised by their parents, provided that they are assigned a certain gender before reaching the age of three.

However, according to some studies, women who have been exposed to androgens in utero have an increased frequency of homosexual fantasies and behaviors. In line with direct biological influence theory, these studies are often interpreted as evidence that prenatal exposure to androgens tunes the brain to sex drive towards women. Feminist neuroscientist Ruth H. Bleier offers an alternative interpretation. Rather than reflecting the effect of masculinizing hormones on sexual differentiation in the brain, the adaptations of prenatally masculinized women may reflect the influence that these women were born with masculinized genitals or knew they were exposed to aberrant levels of sex hormones during development. "Gender is seemingly a fragile and fickle construct," Blair concludes, "if it depends on plastic surgery."

Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University writes that the search in brain anatomy for differences related to sex and other social categories in the last century has been largely discredited by anatomists who have led themselves to believe that their measurements confirm the social prejudices of the time. ... The search for sex differences in the human brain was resumed in the late 1970s, when the team of Roger A. Gorsky of the University of California at Los Angeles discovered a group of cells in the preoptic part of the rat hypothalamus that was much larger in males than in females. The researchers called this group of cells the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA). It has long been assumed that the preoptic region is involved in the regulation of sexual behavior.

As well as sex differences in copulatory behavior and in the regulatory mechanisms of luteinizing hormone, the differences in the size of SDN-POA were due to differences in androgen levels in the early period of development. Shortly thereafter, Blair and I, while working at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, examined the hypothalamus of several rodent species and found that sexual dimorphism was observed not only in SDN-POA, but also in several other hypothalamic nuclei.

Three laboratories recently searched for semi-dymorphic nuclei in the human hypothalamus. Laura S. Allen, working in Gorski's laboratory, discovered four zones potentially homologous to SDN-POA rats and named them the intermediate nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH1-INAH4). These nuclei were measured in various laboratories, but the results were contradictory: for example, the group of Dick F. Svaab of the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research in Amsterdam found that INAH1 was larger in men than in women, while Allen found no differences in this nucleus. but reported that INAH2 and INAH3 are greater in men. Thereafter, LeVay found no sex differences in either INAH1 or INAH2, but confirmed Allen's result that INAH3 was greater in men. LeVay also reported that INAH3 tends to be smaller in homosexual men than in women. (Harvard neuroscientist Clifford Saper and I are measuring intermediate nuclei; we are not yet definite at this time.)

Many have interpreted LeVay's research as compelling evidence that biological factors directly tune the brain to a particular sexual orientation. However, this conclusion raises several objections. First, LeVay's work has not been replicated, and research of this kind in the field of human neuroanatomy is rarely reproduced. Indeed, in the past, procedures similar to those used by LeVay to identify nuclei have misled researchers.

Manfred Gahr, who now works in Germany at the Max Planck Institute for Animal Physiology, used a cell staining technique similar to Levay's and allegedly observed seasonal changes in the size of the canary hypothalamic nucleus associated with singing. However, after applying two more specific staining methods, it became clear that the core size did not change. Gar suggested that a less specific staining method could be influenced by seasonal hormonal fluctuations, due to which the properties of the nucleus cells were changed.

In addition, in LeVay's published study, all brain samples from homosexual men were taken from patients who died of AIDS. By the time of death, virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as a result of the disease itself or the side effects of certain drugs, and the inclusion of several brain samples from heterosexual men who died of AIDS could not adequately compensate for this factor. To date, LeVay has examined the brain of only one homosexual man who did not die of AIDS. Thus, it is possible that the differences in the size of INAH3, which LeVay attributed to the influence of sexual orientation, were in fact caused by hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS. This hypothesis is supported by the work of Deborah Commins and Pauline I. Yahr of the University of California, Irvine. Examining the brains of Mongolian gerbils (Gerbillian - a subfamily of gerbils), they found that the size of the structure, comparable to SDN-POA, changed with the level of testosterone in the blood.

A final problem with the popular interpretation of LeVay's research is that it is based on imprecise analyzes of relevant animal studies. LeVay suggested that INAH3, like the rat SDN-POA, is located in the part of the hypothalamus that he believed is involved in the generation of male sexual behavior. Nevertheless, studies on animals of various species strongly indicate that it is not the region of the hypothalamus in which this nucleus is located that is associated with male sexual behavior. Gorski and Gary W. Arendash, now at the University of South Florida, found that disrupting SDN-POA on both sides of the brains of male rats does not impair their sexual behavior.

Experiments by Jefferson K. Slim at W. Goy's laboratory at the Wisconsin Regional Center for Primate Research (conducted shortly before I joined this group) suggest that in rhesus monkeys, the part of the brain associated with sexual behavior is located in the region, comparable to the area where INAH3 is found in humans. Males who had this area damaged made swoops on females less often than before surgery, but their frequency of masturbation did not change. Although some believe that the implication of these observations is that when this region of the brain is damaged there is a selective decrease in heterosexual attraction, this conclusion is not supported by anything; after the operation, the male monkeys pressed the lever to gain access to the females more often than before. Unfortunately, these males did not have the opportunity to interact with other males, and therefore this study does not allow comparison of homosexual and heterosexual behavior or motivation before and after brain damage.

In search of the connection between the structure of the brain and sexual orientation, not only the intermediate nuclei of the hypothalamus were investigated, but also other parts of the brain. Neuroanatomists are also reporting potentially interesting differences they find in areas of the brain that are not directly related to sexual behavior. Swaab and his colleague Michelle A. Hoffman found that another nucleus of the hypothalamus, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, is larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. However, the size of this structure does not depend on gender, so even if this result can be reproduced, it cannot be considered as confirmation of the assumption that the brain of homosexual men has features characteristic of women.

At the same time, Allen from UCLA reported that the anterior commissure, that is, the structure involved in the exchange of information between the hemispheres of the brain, is larger in women than in men. She later came to the conclusion that the anterior commissure in gay men is feminized - that is, it is larger than in heterosexual men. However, Stephen Demeter, Robert W. Doughty, and James L. Ringo at the University of Rochester got the opposite result: the anterior commissure is larger in males than in females. In addition, even if Allen's results are correct, the size of an individual's anterior commissure alone does not tell anything about their sexual orientation. Although Allen found statistically significant differences in the average adhesion size between gay and heterosexual men, of the 30 men she examined, 27 had anterior commissure sizes in the same range as the anterior commissures in the 30 heterosexual men surveyed for comparison.

Some researchers looking for a link between biological factors and sexual orientation have turned to genetics instead of studying the structure of the brain. Several recent studies suggest that brothers of homosexual men are more likely to be homosexual than men who do not have gay brothers. Of these studies, only in the work of J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Richard Pillard of Boston University, in addition to identical and fraternal twins, both biological brothers (not twins) and adoptive brothers who are not blood relatives of homosexual men were interviewed).

The results of their study turned out to be paradoxical: some statistics confirm the genetic hypothesis, while others refute it. The likelihood that a gay brother will also have a homosexual orientation was greatest for identical twins; 52% of them were both homosexual compared to 22% of fraternal twins. This result is evidence in favor of genetic interpretation, since in identical twins, the sets of genes completely coincide, while in fraternal twins, only half. However, brothers of homosexuals who are not twins have the same share of genes that are identical with the brother of homosexuals as fraternal twins; however, only 9% of them were also homosexuals. According to the genetic hypothesis, the coefficients of sexual orientation agreement in fraternal twins and brothers who are not twins should be the same.

In addition, Bailey and Pillard found that the incidence of homosexuality among adoptive brothers of homosexuals (11%) was much higher than recent estimates of the proportion of homosexuals in the population (1 to 5%). In fact, this frequency was equal to that of biological brothers who are not twins. The results of this study clearly cast doubt on the validity of the genetic hypothesis and strongly suggest the importance of the role of the environment in the formation of sexual orientation.

Two of three other recent studies have also shown that identical twin brothers, one of whom is homosexual, have a higher incidence of homosexuality in the second brother than for identical twins. However, in all cases studied, the twins were brought up together. Without information about what developmental experiences influence sexual orientation - and whether these experiences are more similar in identical twins compared to fraternal twins - it is difficult to separate the influence of the same genes from the influence of the same environment. To solve this problem, it is necessary to investigate twins raised apart.

In fact, perhaps the most important result of these genetic studies is the establishment of the fact that, despite the gene identity of the maximum similarity of prenatal and postnatal environments, about half of identical twin pairs were nonetheless mismatched in sexual orientation. This discovery further hints at how little we know about the origins of sexual orientation.

Dean H. Heimer's group at the National Institutes of Health found the most direct evidence that specific genes can influence sexual orientation. This group focused on examining a small region of the X chromosome called the Xq28 region, which contains hundreds of genes. Women have two X chromosomes and therefore two regions of Xq28, but they pass on to their son (who has one X chromosome) a copy of only one of them. The theoretical probability that two sons will inherit a copy of the same Xq28 from their mother is 50%. Haymer examined 40 pairs of gay brothers, and it turned out that 33 of them, instead of the expected 20, inherited the same Xq28 sections from their mother.

Haymer's discovery is often misinterpreted: it is believed that all 66 men out of 33 pairs had the same Xq28 sequence. In fact, this study showed that out of 33 matched pairs of brothers, only one pair of brothers had the same Xq28 areas, and the same Xq28 was not found in any of the other 32 pairs. A single specific Xq28 sequence, the same for all 66 males (a hypothetical “homosexuality gene”), has not been found.

Unfortunately, Heimer's group did not examine the Xq28 region of the heterosexual brothers of their gay subjects to find out which part of them has the same sequence as the brother. Heimer believes that the inclusion of heterosexual siblings in the study would lead to confounding results, since a gene associated with homosexuality may be "not completely penetrant" - which means that this gene may be present in heterosexual men, but not at all. In other words, by including heterosexual brothers, one might find that sexual orientation does not depend on genetic factors, but on some other factors.

Finally, Neil J. Risch, at Yale University and one of the developers of the statistical methodology used by Heimer, investigated the statistical significance of Heimer's results. Risch argues that until we accumulate more detailed information about familial clustering of homosexuality, it is impossible to draw clear conclusions from studies such as Heimer's.

Studies that indicate the hereditary nature of homosexuality (provided that they can be reproduced) say nothing about the mechanism of this heredity. By themselves, genes carry information about proteins, not about behavior or psychological phenomena. Although we know almost nothing about how complex psychological phenomena materialize in the brain, one can imagine that a certain DNA sequence somehow contributes to the "tuning" of the brain to a homosexual orientation. However, it is important to note that hereditary transmission is carried out without the participation of such a mechanism.

Instead, certain genes can influence personality traits, which in turn influence relationships and subjective experiences that contribute to sexual orientation through social learning. One can imagine many ways in which differences in temperament can, in different environments, give rise to different orientations.

A useful metaphorical example is the yarrow: depending on the height of the plant's growth above sea level, genetic variation leads to completely different phenotypes. The development of a yarrow stalk is a non-linear function of the height at which it grows, since height does not affect any one attribute, but many attributes. This influence affects the length of the plant, the number of leaves in the stems and the branching pattern. If a plant can react so complexly to its environment, then what about a much more complex organism that can change this environment at will?

Here we can offer only the most simplified scheme of the possible interaction between genes and the environment during the formation of sexual orientation. For example, many researchers believe that rough-and-tumble play in boys is a moderate predictor of homosexual development. (Proponents of the direct model argue that this disgust is simply a childish expression of the brain's inclination to homosexuality.) At the same time, psychoanalysts have noticed that many of their gay patients report poor rapport with their fathers. Thus, psychoanalysts suggest that poor father-son relationships lead to homosexuality.

It is possible to combine these observations and suggest that a genetically determined aversion to ultimate wrestling in boys may have a negative impact on their relationships with fathers, who require boys to adhere to rigid gender-role stereotypes. Fathers who do not make such demands will maintain good relations with their sons. As a result, the hypothetical gene in question may only affect sexual orientation in some, not all, cases. Even such a reductionist example (which deals with traits that reflect cultural stereotypes rather than biological factors) shows that neither temperament nor family environment can play a decisive role. Studies that look at only one of these two variables may not lead to conclusive results.

The above considerations once again indicate how much work remains to be done by researchers to understand the biological and environmental factors that influence sexual orientation. Even if it turns out that the sizes of certain brain structures are indeed associated with sexual orientation, current information about the brain is insufficient to explain the process of the transition of these quantitative differences into qualitative differences, which are expressed in such a complex psychological phenomenon as sexual orientation. Likewise, the confirmation of genetic studies that indicate the hereditary nature of homosexuality will not clarify the question of what is inherited and what effect this has on sexual orientation. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, interpretations of the results obtained will continue to be based on assumptions, the validity of which is in doubt.

As long as attempts to reproduce these preliminary results continue, researchers and the general public must resist the temptation to view them as more than unconfirmed hypotheses. Perhaps it is much more important for us to answer the question of why we as a society have such a great emotional interest in this research. Will they - and is such an influence permissible - affect how we perceive ourselves and other people and how we live ourselves and allow others to live? Apparently, the answers to the most pressing questions of this discussion are not related to the biology of the human brain, but to the cultures created by this brain.

Sex drive is formed with the participation of a complex of factors, which can be conditionally divided into somatic, physiological and psychological. Of these, the main ones are the following: the mechanism of erection, genital sensations, general sexual arousal, orgasm.

One of the levels of sex drive is psychosexual orientation. The only factor that has a significant impact in this regard is aggression, the level of which is set by the balance of sex hormones: estrogens, testosterone. Aggression can manifest itself in the form of rivalry, a hierarchy of dominance, hostile relationships.

Different types of behavior based on aggressiveness in ascending order from bottom to top:

male aggressive;
male, slightly aggressive (paternal);
female (maternal);
without interaction (loneliness).

Normal sexual (sexual) orientation in men, starting from early childhood, is formed by avoiding extreme manifestations of male aggression (and, on the other hand, loneliness) and by striving for a female (maternal) type of interaction (without an obvious spirit of competition), and, consequently, gravitation towards women.

Interaction between men of the "weakly aggressive" type is typical for business, friendship and play (in childhood) relationships, as well as for family relationships.

For the formation of the psychosexual orientation of women, an aggressive type of relationship between men is also important. Aggressive manifestations - rivalry, domination - are perceived (unconsciously) by women as a sign of strength, the ability to protect. And this becomes the main reason for gravitation towards men.

The final consolidation of the emerging orientation occurs when puberty begins, and when emotional experiences and mutual empathy intensify between representatives of different sexes.

The influence of the family (strict father, kind mother) does not seem to be of decisive importance in the formation of sexual orientation, since relations in the family, as a rule, are more formal, smoothed out than outside the family.

The asymmetry of the normal sexual orientation (that is, the difference in value orientations), male and female, is associated with the asymmetry of the manifestation and perception of aggression in men and women. With deviations (homosexuality, lesbianism), the asymmetry of orientations becomes more noticeable. Deviations can occur for biological reasons (for example, a change in the balance of hormones: estrogen and testosterone), and for social reasons (various isolation).

Another level of libido is associated with genital sensations, which are projectively extended to members of the opposite sex. At first glance, the sequence of events looks like this: a state of sexual (sexual) arousal, accompanied by an erection of the penis, prompts sexual intercourse. However, excitation cannot be primary (in the sense of onto- and phylogenesis) in this series of events, since it is initially “not known” which signals should trigger it and for what purpose. Only the situation of avoidance created by internal, physiological mechanisms can give the correct reference point. This situation is created by the erection mechanism initially independent of external signals: in men - the penis, in women - the clitoris.

The fact is that an erection can occur spontaneously, and not only during intimate relationships. And another important observation that follows from the first: an erection in most cases is not accompanied by general sexual arousal (that is, only genital arousal occurs). For example, in the REM sleep phase, in the morning after sleep, and sometimes during the day, a spontaneous erection that does not turn into sexual arousal can be obsessive and cause a state of general discomfort, frustration, as well as unpleasant sensations of overflow and irritation (during sleep - unconscious) directly in the genitals. This is a biologically programmed state, an internal situation that triggers an avoidance response. The subsequent pleasant sensations in the genitals (inversion of perception) and pleasant sexual arousal, stimulated by the imagination or during sexual intercourse, are secondary. They only indicate the further direction of action - bodily contacts and mechanical stimulation of the penis, following which sexual intercourse takes place. That is, there is a weakening of internal tension (relief of the state of discomfort), which ultimately determines the model of sexual behavior.

In the rapid phase of sleep, not only internal stress "accumulates" in connection with an erection, but also situational conditioned reactions arise (which, apparently, are quickly inhibited) to situational signals in dream plots. The multitude of conditioned connections to the situation, perhaps, explains the ease with which an erection in appropriate situations turns into sexual arousal. That is, two factors: on the one hand - the pressure of an unconditioned reaction (a state of discomfort on an erection), - and on the other, the "accumulation" of conditioned connections to the situation - balance in a position close to equilibrium, which gives an overall picture of "distancing an unpleasant stimulus". This increases the likelihood of inversion - the transition of a negative emotion of discomfort into a positive emotion - pleasant genital sensations, and then into general sexual arousal.

In general, under the influence of sexual attraction, a wide range of all kinds of inversions occurs. So, smells or visual images, in other cases causing disgust, in intimate relationships can acquire the property of an additional exciting factor.

The climax of sexual behavior is orgasm - the experience of intense sexual satisfaction, coinciding with a sharp weakening of nervous and muscle tension - in men associated with ejaculation. Physiological sensations and psychological experiences of orgasm represent the third component of the phenomenon of sexual desire.

Comments (1)

IN AND.

The following scheme of the formation of sexual orientation and sexual desire is assumed.

The emerging spontaneous erection (in men - the penis, in women - the clitoris) first causes discomfort, negative emotions. Then, as you get used to it (inhibition of conditioned reflexes to the situation), an inversion occurs, that is, negative emotions from case to case begin to turn into positive ones. Pleasant sensations appear in the genitals, passing into a dominant positive emotion (general sexual arousal, euphoria), on the basis of which the dominant motivation arises - sexual desire. Attraction to the opposite sex is formed by the projection mechanism, that is, sensations in the genitals are projected onto persons of the opposite sex.
The direction of sexual orientation is determined by interaction in groups. In men, the correct sexual orientation (attraction to women) is the result of aggressive interaction in a male environment (rivalry, hostile relationships cause rejection). In women, this is an unconscious assessment of the aggressive behavior of men (toughness, self-confidence, dominance, ability to protect) as attractive.

Leon

Sorry, but complete nonsense ...

Quote:
Attraction to the opposite sex is formed by the projection mechanism, that is, sensations in the genitals are projected onto persons of the opposite sex.

That is, erection is primary in sex drive? Cool...

Quote:
In men, the correct sexual orientation (attraction to women) is the result of aggressive interaction in a male environment (rivalry, hostile relationships cause rejection).

That is, if there is no rivalry, then homosexuality is a foregone conclusion?

Quote:
Attraction to the opposite sex is formed by the projection mechanism, that is, sensations in the genitals are projected onto persons of the opposite sex

Do you even remember what the purpose of sex is?

IN AND.

Quote:
that is, erection is primary in sex drive?

Looks like yes ...
As ejaculation occurs without orgasm, so spontaneous erection (observed from early childhood) first occurs without general sexual arousal.
Imagine, on the contrary, that sexual arousal is primary. But what signal should trigger it? It is impossible to genetically program this so that any particular image causes excitement (for example, during imprinting, only the mechanism itself is programmed, but not the visual image).
Likewise, as a result of trauma, pain, agitation, and then the pleasant itching of the healing wound occurs first. Here pain is primary, general excitement and euphoria are secondary.

Quote:
That is, if there is no rivalry, then homosexuality is a foregone conclusion?

This does not happen in nature, so that there is no rivalry. If it happens occasionally (for example, as a result of isolation), then yes, deviations are possible.

Projection is a conditional link. It also shows what signal (for example, a visual image) should cause a conditioned response (excitement and erection), which, as you know, is built on the basis of an unconditioned (spontaneous erection and response to it). That is, the man first projects his sensations in the genitals onto the female genitals, and then, at the sight of a more or less naked woman, a conditioned reaction is triggered, the same sensations and motives arise, but intensified to the level of dominant motivation.

Here are the well-known facts.
With alcoholism, drug addiction, taking tranquilizers, sleeping pills, the structure of sleep is disturbed, in particular, the rapid phase. Spontaneous erection, which is normally observed in this phase, is also upset. As a result, the level of libido decreases, impotence may develop. Here, of course, the influence of other factors is also possible.

Does not matter

In order to understand this situation, it is imperative to read the book on zoopsychology by K.E. Fabry about instincts and various types of learning from birth and beyond. Further read Vilyunas V.K. about the mechanisms of mental conditioning and mediation.
In total, you get the correct picture.

Semion

I don't really know how a woman feels. but in my opinion women are almost not interested in sex. a man's shoulder is more important for a woman - a combination of mind and strength, which then and may interest. as for men, given their strength, they usually want sex from women, this is true.
Well, dinner on the table is delicious and fidelity so that the child is exactly the husband and not the uncle - the neighbor

Maryan

Yes, here Semion is completely right and wants sex too. For some reason, sex is at the heart of a good relationship, maybe it should be. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Semion

If a woman feels that a man is promising and will be with her, then she can already relax and think about sex.
The first place for a man is to be him. that is, to earn money and not offend. to be faithful too, but for a man it is not so important, but it is important for a woman to feel that she will not be abandoned, especially with a child

Lex

Quote:
I don't really know how a woman feels. but in my opinion women are almost not interested in sex

Hmm ... A bold statement ... It is fairly said about I do not know what women feel, but if they (girls, sorry) are really not interested in sex, then they hide it, in any case, very skillfully ...

As for the shoulders, grace and other perspectives, it seems that these objects excite women by themselves, much faster than she can relax.

A good, damn it, question ... It seems worth it to become a separate topic.

Semion

Freud wrote that a boy and a father perceive each other as rivals and girls and mothers are also at enmity.

Therefore, mothers always suppress the sexuality of girls and fathers of boys

And attraction goes through the channels of reciprocity and friendship - of different sex

Andrey Bulatov

Women are capricious - it is often easier to negotiate with men! Therefore, people who cannot CONTROL their reflexes develop sexual orientation along the path of less resistance.

Semion

Yes, whims are better than male aggression.

Hector

ThE wrote:
Better explain to me how the electra complex works, and why girls generally transfer their "love attraction" to their father, if for them, like for boys, the first love is the mother.

They endure it because they are disappointed in their mother, who is considered "castrated."

Archetype

Ugh, Freudianism at every turn;)

IN AND.

ThE, Quote:
Better explain to me how the electra complex works, and why girls generally transfer their "love attraction" to their father, if for them, like for boys, the first love is the mother.

What is taken for the complexes of Oedipus and Electra may be associated with social and everyday reasons. For example, fathers are less demanding of daughters than sons. And mothers and daughters more often than sons are involved in housework.

Man is a complex system influenced by a combination of external and internal factors. Therefore, any of its characteristics must be considered taking into account all possible influences, both biological and social. An interesting object from this point of view is sexual orientation. What factors determine it and can it be influenced?

What is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual orientation is kind of easy. We know that it is determined depending on what gender we are attracted to. Accordingly, there are three types of sexual orientations: homosexuality (attraction to people of the same sex), heterosexuality (attraction to people of the opposite sex), and bisexuality (attraction to people of both sexes). But is everything so easy with the word "attraction"? How would you define it yourself?

Attraction must be considered with two aspects in mind. It can be emotional and physical. Then the question of determining sexual orientation becomes a little more difficult. If you once in your life felt the desire to have sex with a person of your gender, does this mean that you are homosexual?

In an attempt to answer this question, the famous American biologist and sexologist Alfred Kinsey created a scale that you have probably heard about. It was used by the scientist in his monographs entitled "Sexual Behavior of the Human Male" (published in 1948) and "Sexual Behavior of the Human Female" (published in 1953). The Kinsey scale is divided into 7 points (0-6): options from exceptional heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. In the middle is bisexuality. A little later, the 8th option was included in this scale - asexuality, that is, the absence of sexual attraction to anyone. Based on the descriptions of each option, you can try to estimate which number on the scale you are on. Let's say that if you are a woman and you have mostly had heterosexual contact, but once in your life you have had sex with a girl, then most likely you are a "one" on the Kinsey scale. What does this explain? In general, nothing. The nature of attraction is still unclear. Kinsey himself believed that sexuality can change over the course of a person's life and that his sexual behavior can be viewed both as physical contact and as a mental phenomenon.

Indiana University Sex Research Institute, 1953. Alfred Kinsey in the center

If we take the dictionary definition of the concept of "attraction", then we will find that it is a desire that prompts a person to perform actions to satisfy any need. What kind of need in this case can we talk about?

The simplest answer that comes to mind is to satisfy the need to reproduce. But this contradicts our empirical findings: we all know that sexual intercourse is not always performed in the name of reproductive goals.

Sex can be a way to establish emotional closeness and even a position in the social hierarchy. If you catch some Freudian, he will tell you that attraction is an “irritation” for the psyche, by analogy with irritation from external influences and the subsequent reflex reaction. In addition, attraction is characterized by the fact that it comes "from within" the body and is a constant force, therefore it is impossible to get rid of its action by flight. So sex is a tool to get rid of an irritant.

Given the ambiguity of the causes of attraction, which excludes the dominance of reproductive function, it is safe to say that all variants of sexuality are varieties of the norm. To investigate the factors influencing its formation, it is necessary to present it as a phenotypic trait of a person. In this discourse, one of the authors has come up with a ponderous definition for sexual orientation. It sounds like this:

Sexual orientation is the resulting behavioral response to the analysis and subsequent synthesis by the human brain of all information coming from the outside about the primary, secondary and tertiary sex characteristics of the people around.

The uniqueness of the sexual orientation of each person, according to the same author, is determined by the biological and gender characteristics of the state of his body and psyche at each moment of time.

Genetics

Biological causes are determined by genetics. The process of forming sexual orientation depends on which chromosome is part of a person's DNA and how these genes further affect the structure of organs.

A person has 22 paired chromosomes and two unpaired chromosomes - X and Y, which are responsible for his gender. The combination of two X chromosomes determines the development of the female embryo, and the combination of the X chromosome with the Y makes the body male. How is the "tuning" done? Around the second month of pregnancy, the fetus begins to form endocrine glands, that is, organs capable of secreting hormones. Based on which genes the glands encode, they can secrete either male or female sex hormones. The genitals of the embryo are initially represented by the base gonads, which are female by default. By the third month of pregnancy, hormones secreted by the glands begin to affect the structure of the genitals. Specifically, testosterone, a male hormone, converts the universal sex organs into male sex organs. For example, hypertrophy of the clitoris occurs, that is, it increases in size so much that it eventually becomes a penis. Later in pregnancy, around the fifth month, testosterone begins to affect the brain of the embryo.

The fact is that the phenotype depends on the allelic composition of the parental haplotypes of autosomes, and if a child has mutant alleles, this can lead to the fact that his body with the XX chromosome begins to develop in a male pattern. Or, conversely, the XY organism acquires feminine phenotypic traits. This phenomenon explains the existence of intersex people - people who cannot be unequivocally attributed to any gender. They may live and not suspect that something is wrong with them, until, for example, a genetic analysis is done. Although "something is wrong" here, too, is not entirely appropriate. After all, a person with an XY chromosome can look like a woman and even identify gender in the same way, and not experience problems. At least until trying to conceive a child. Reproductive function can be significantly affected here.

A complex complex of gene interactions leads to a multitude of intersex options. Therefore, many of these people may be homosexual or bisexual. However, this does not mean that these variants of sexual orientation cannot manifest themselves in people with typical male or female phenotypes corresponding to the set of sex chromosomes. What, in fact, is the catch? Where is something in the body that is responsible for our sexual orientation?

There are no specific genes that would tell the body “Here you are going to demonstrate homosexual behavior”. There were studies in which they tried to grope for something. One, for example, says that if you are gay, then your maternal uncle has a 7.3% chance of being gay. But these numbers and correlations are very minor.

Biology

If we talk about the differences in the structure of the brain in different sexes, then you need to understand that they are mainly concentrated in the hypothalamus. This is primarily due to the fact that women constantly experience sharp jumps in hormonal levels in order to maintain a regular menstrual cycle. This naturally induces structural changes in the hypothalamus. In addition, there is evidence that this part of the brain controls a person's sexual behavior.

There is another interesting phenomenon that scientists once discovered. During pregnancy, the mental state and health of the mother greatly affects the development of the fetus. Due to the fact that the human body is dependent on environmental conditions and adapts to their changes, a woman's poor lifestyle causes irreversible consequences of the development of her child. If she finds herself in conditions where there is little food, cold, a lot of stress, this is a signal for her body that it is not a good idea to reproduce now, and it would be worthwhile to survive on its own first. He throws all his efforts to ensure the survival of the mistress. At the same time, the stress hormone cortisol, which is actively produced in an unfavorable environment, penetrates the placenta into the child's body and begins to influence his sex glands. In a boy's embryo, for example, this causes a decrease in testosterone production and, as a result, its further development according to the feminine type.

This hypothesis is partly supported by research by Dr. Dörner, during which he noticed that during various wars, more gay people were born than in peacetime. However, new data show that these were, rather, statistical fluctuations. Therefore, there is no exact confirmation of the hypothesis regarding people.

However, it is impossible to deny the influence of the environment on the rate of population growth. Homosexuality and asexuality can be evolutionary mechanisms that turn on when a group of animals is in unfavorable conditions and it becomes illogical to reproduce a lot.

Yes, different types of sexual orientations are found not only in humans, but also in animals. In gray geese, domestic sheep, orangutans, in short, in another 450 species. This is an additional confirmation that sexual orientation is formed due to a complex of reasons that continuously affect the body, and not because of "propaganda".

Society

In Russia, a pseudo-scientific fact is legally enshrined that homosexual behavior can allegedly be caused by means of propaganda. To what extent is society actually able to influence the sexual orientation of an individual?

As we have already considered, one single factor cannot have a serious impact on the formation of sexuality. He definitely brings his own piece to the big picture, but he never becomes decisive. A refutation of the opinion that education and "propaganda" can turn a heterosexual into a homosexual was research on identical twins. It should be understood that in such children, the genetic material is completely identical, which means that the ratio of acquired and congenital traits can be checked on them. Studying, thus, homosexual and heterosexual twins, scientists have found that if one of the brothers and sisters is gay, then the second with a probability of more than 50% will also be gay. Probably, congenital genetic features strongly influence this phenotypic trait.

The influence of society, behavioral patterns of close friends and acquaintances, some trends is expressed in the likelihood of single homosexual or heterosexual contacts. And, most likely, it works with gays. Fearing condemnation and pressure from society, they try to enter into relationships with people of the opposite sex, while experiencing a craving for same-sex relationships. Heterosexuals, who are far from "zero" on the above Kinsey scale, can also try to have sex with people of the same gender, but, without getting pleasure, they stop at a single experience.

Sexual orientation is a phenotypic trait that is formed under the influence of a complex combination of various reasons, both biological and social. It has not been fully studied, and science still has a lot to do to fully understand the mechanisms that regulate the process of its formation.

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.

The question of why people (and in particular men) become homosexuals has long remained open. Previously, it was believed that same-sex orientation is caused by improper upbringing, molestation, or appropriate propaganda. An interesting science-based conclusion was presented for discussion at the symposium of the American Society for Human Genetics, held on October 8 in the American city of Baltimore.

It's not about upbringing

During the reign of the National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany, gays, along with Jews, Gypsies and communists, were massacred in an attempt to "cleanse" society of unwanted elements, but such a massive and cruel experiment revealed its complete futility. In the short post-war period, the percentage of homosexuals recovered, and their number has become about the same as it was in 1933. Also, scientists have proven the absolute ineffectiveness of promoting "blue" views among the majority of men professing heterosexuality. Ultimately, the scientific world has recognized the idea of ​​a voluntary choice of sexual orientation as archaic. In other words, they do not become homosexuals, they are born. A direct consequence of this conclusion was the need to clarify the genetic reasons for this innate tendency.

"Gay Gen"

There has been some controversy over the idea that the "gay gene" does exist, but scientific evidence also strongly suggests that sexual orientation, at least in men, is largely (though not entirely) dependent on hereditary factors. The results of the new study offer the first piece of evidence supporting the link between sexual orientation and DNA tags, as well as environmental influences.

The hypothesis that there is a genetic explanation for homosexuality has been circulating in scientific circles for some time. Gay twins alone seemed to be enough for such an assumption to arise. Nevertheless, it took a long time to confirm it with convincing evidence. Only in the past year, for example, after careful study of gay brothers, an idea proposed 20 years ago has received reinforcement. It turned out that the DNA molecule, in particular the X chromosome and chromosome 8, is closely related to sexual orientation.

Statistics

Studies conducted on identical pairs of twins have found that if one brother is gay, there is an approximately 20 percent chance that the other child will have the same sexual orientation. Moreover, in any subsequent case of pregnancy of their mother (boy), the likelihood that her next son will grow up a homosexual increases by 33%. These numbers clearly indicate the hereditary nature of the phenomenon that causes genetic marriage.

After numerous mathematical calculations of genomes, scientists found five brands that were present more often in gay men than in their heterosexual twin brothers. Thanks to these features, they obtained the theoretical ability to predict whether a nascent individual will have homosexual tendencies with an accuracy of 67%. So far, this is the first biomarker on the basis of which the creation of an intellectual model of sexual orientation can be predicted.

Perhaps further research will shed light on the nature of human relationships and provide more information on what to consider as normal.

Sexual orientation

An individual's sexual orientation is how much he or she is attracted to people of the opposite sex and / or people of the same sex. Like Alfred Kinsey, the pioneer of sex research, most behavioral scientists view sexual orientation as a continuum from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. For example, on the 7-point Kinsey scale, individuals who are exclusively attracted to people of the opposite sex and who engage in sexual behavior only with such people are at the heterosexual end of this scale (category 0); those who are exclusively attracted to people of the same sex and who engage in sexual behavior only with such people are at the homosexual end of this continuum (category 6). Individuals in categories 2 through 4 are usually defined as bisexual.

This view of the situation, however, is oversimplified because sexual orientation includes several different components, including erotic attraction or sexual desire, sexual behavior, romantic attraction, and self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. It would not be unusual for a person to occupy different places on this scale for each of these components. For example, many people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior; many of those who have had frequent homosexual contact do not identify as homosexual or bisexual. To complicate matters further, over time, a person can change orientation to one or more components.

Frequency of occurrence of different sexual orientations. According to a recent Sexuality Survey, in the United States, 10.1% of adult men and 8.6% of women in a government random sample reported one of the following: (a) They are currently attracted to "mostly" or "only" people your gender; b) they find that sex with a person of the same sex is "quite" or "very" pleasant; c) they have engaged in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex since the age of 18 (Laumann et al, 1994). These figures are close to the proportion of people who consider themselves left-handed (about 8%). With regard to their own identification, 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women consider themselves to be homosexual (or gay and lesbian) or bisexual - this is close to the proportion of people of Jewish nationality in the United States (2-3%).

As the authors of the review admit, these numbers should be considered conservative, as some are reluctant to report desires and behaviors that some people consider immoral or pathological. In this study, this problem was especially acute, since the interviews were conducted with these people at home and were not always private; more than 20% of the interviews were attended by other family members and even children.

Sources of sexual orientation. A typical question "What is the cause of homosexuality?" scientifically incorrect, since it implicitly assumes that heterosexuality either needs no explanation or its reasons are obvious. Those who do think about this question often come to the conclusion that since only heterosexual behavior leads to the reproduction of offspring, it is a "natural" result of evolution, and therefore only deviations from heterosexuality (such as homosexuality) are a mystery to science. However, Freud himself did not agree with this point of view: "[heterosexuality] is also a problem that needs clarification, and is not a self-evident fact based on the mutual attraction of the sexes, ultimately of a chemical nature" (1905/1962, p. 11-12). Precisely because we agree with Freud, we have titled this section "sexual orientation" and not "homosexuality."

The issue of “congenital-acquired” is on the agenda again, which we met in chapter 3 on development and which we will discuss in detail in chapter 12 on individual differences: whether an adult's sexual orientation is determined mainly by early life experience or by innate biological factors, such as the influence of hormones or genes?

The best evidence for early life experience comes from large-scale studies based on interviews with approximately 1,000 homosexual and 500 heterosexual men and women in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, 1981a). [When describing studies that explicitly compare homosexual men and women with heterosexual men and women, we will use the terms homosexual men and women and heterosexual men and women, respectively. Otherwise, we will subscribe to the guidelines published by the American Psychological Association and refer to homosexual men and women as gay and lesbian men, respectively. - Approx. author.]

This study uncovered one, and only one, major determinant of homosexual orientation in adulthood in both men and women: childhood sexual incompatibility. As shown in table. 10.2, when asked which play activities they enjoyed and disliked as children, homosexual men and women were much less likely than heterosexual men and women to report that they liked games that were typical of their gender, and were much more likely to report, that they liked games typical of the opposite sex. Homosexual men and women were also less likely than heterosexuals to report being masculine (for men) or feminine (for women) as children. In addition to this sexual incompatibility, homosexual men and women were more likely to have more friends of the opposite sex.

Table 10.2. Sexual incompatibility in childhood

In a large-scale study, interviewed homosexual men and women were more likely than heterosexuals to report their childhood sexual incompatibility (according to: Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, 1981b).

It is worth highlighting two features of the data from Table. 10.2. First, these data are quite compelling and similar for men and women: only about 37% of homosexual men and women enjoyed games typical of their gender in childhood, compared with 85-90% for heterosexuals. In fact, homosexual men were less likely to participate in typical boys' games (such as soccer or baseball) than heterosexual women. Second, despite the credibility of this data, there are many exceptions. For example, 44% of homosexual men report being masculine as children (compared, however, with 92% among heterosexual men). That sexual incompatibility in childhood predetermines homosexuality in adulthood is now supported by several other studies (Bailey & Zucker, 1995), including several that selected boys with incompatibility and traced them to adulthood (Zucker, 1990; Green, 1987).

In addition to the data on sexual incompatibility, this study from San Francisco also yielded a lot of negative data, which is very important because it refutes some common theories about the causes of homosexual orientation. From it, for example, it follows that:

A growing person's identification with a parent of the opposite sex significantly affects whether he turns out to be homosexual or heterosexual. This is at odds with Freud's psychoanalytic theory (discussed in Chapter 13), as well as with other theories based on childhood family dynamics. And while gay men recall somewhat colder relationships with their fathers than heterosexual men — which is consistent with psychoanalytic theory — this is also true of lesbians versus heterosexual women. In addition, these results indicate that the colder father-child relationship does not predetermine homosexual development, but is the result of the father's dislike or rejection of the sexually incompatible child, especially the feminine-acting son. As we noted in Chapter 3, fathers are much less tolerant of sexual incompatibility than mothers.

Gay and lesbian men are no more likely than heterosexual men and women to report that their first sexual encounter was with a person of the same sex. In addition, it cannot be said that they lacked heterosexual experiences as children and adolescents, or that the experience was unpleasant for them.

A person's sexual orientation is usually formed during adolescence, even though they may not have become sexually active yet. Gay and lesbian men tend to experience the same sexual urges about 3 years before entering into a "better" sexual relationship with a partner of the same sex.

These last two paragraphs show that, in general, homosexual experiences, rather than homosexual activities, are the decisive precursors of homosexual orientation in adulthood. They thereby refute all sorts of simple behavioral theories of sexual orientation learning, including the popular lay theory that a person can become homosexual if he is “seduced” by a person of the same sex, or if his teacher, parent, or clergyman whom he admires, is openly homosexual. Intercultural research data are also consistent with this finding. For example, in the Sambi culture (New Guinea), all boys engage in homosexual behavior from puberty to late adolescence. After reaching the latter, almost all of them marry and become exclusively heterosexual (Herdt, 1987, 1984).

Finally, all of these studies show that a person's sexual orientation is not just a matter of choice. This is not to say that gay and lesbian men are in any way more deciding on their own that they will have erotic feelings for people of the same sex than heterosexual people decide to have erotic feelings for people of the opposite sex. Behavioral scientists disagree on the question of "innate-acquired", that is, whether the main determinants of sexual orientation are rooted in biology or in experience; but they often misinterpret this question as a question of whether sexual orientation is determined by variables outside the control of the individual, or whether it can be freely chosen. But this is not the same problem.

Since most theories of homosexuality based on experiences of childhood and adolescence are not supported by factual evidence, many scholars now believe that the origins of both childhood gender nonconformity and sexual orientation are likely biological, and possibly lie in genes or prenatal hormones. Under the heading "Modern Voices in Psychology", two opposing points of view are presented on the currently available biological data.

Biological factors. Since the results of the San Francisco study disprove virtually all major theories of homosexuality based on childhood or adolescent experience, the researchers conclude that the origins of both childhood sexual incompatibility and adult homosexual orientation may lie in congenital or prenatal human biology, and to this we now turn to the question.

As noted earlier in this chapter, sex hormones, especially androgens, are involved in sexual motivation. This is especially pronounced in men, leading many early researchers to believe that gay men have lower androgen or testosterone levels than heterosexual men. But this hypothesis was not confirmed. Most studies showed no difference, and where such a difference was found, other factors known to suppress androgen levels, such as stress or drug addiction, were not controlled. In addition, when testosterone is additionally administered to gay men, their sexual motivation increases, as in men in general, but their sexual orientation does not change.

The role of hormones in prenatal development is linked to a different hormonal hypothesis. Based on data from a study carried out on rats, in which prenatal testosterone "masculinizes" the brain and subsequently creates self-like responses in sexual behavior, some researchers have suggested that if a human male fetus receives significantly less than average testosterone at some critical moment in prenatal development, then in adulthood, he will be predisposed to homosexual orientation. Likewise, if a human female fetus is exposed to significantly higher than average levels of testosterone, then there may be a slight predisposition to homosexual orientation in adulthood (Ellis & Ames, 1987).

The hypothesis of prenatal hormone exposure in humans is difficult to test, and most such studies suffer from methodological flaws that prevent any firm conclusion (Adkins-Regan, 1988; Ehrhardt & Meyer-Bahlburg, 1981). Take, for example, a well-known study that tracked girls who were exposed to extreme levels of testosterone prior to birth. These girls were born with ambiguous genitals that were surgically repaired shortly after birth. In interviews conducted in middle childhood, these girls and their mothers reported that they were more like "tomboy boys" than the girls in the control group (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972). In early childhood, they were more likely than control girls to have sexual fantasies involving the same sex (Money, Schwartz & Lewis, 1984). These results have often been interpreted to mean that testosterone “masculinized” the brains of these girls during the prenatal period.

But other interpretations are also possible. For example, these girls were also receiving cortisone therapy, which could increase their physical activity and, therefore, make them big tomboys. This could affect their interactions with other girls, boys, and adults, and possibly change the behavior of these people towards them. For this and other reasons, this study does not clearly show a direct link between prenatal hormone exposure and adult sexual orientation.

Similar methodological problems make it difficult to interpret other data relevant to the hypothesis of prenatal hormone exposure. It has been reported, for example, that the hypothalamus of gay men differs in small structural details from the hypothalamus of heterosexual men (LeVay, 1993, 1991). As we noted earlier, the hypothalamus is a part of the brain closely associated with sex hormones and sexual behavior. But this data is based on a study of the brains of deceased people, and all of the gay men studied died of AIDS, while most of the heterosexual men in the control group did not. We do not know if the disease process itself influenced the structure of the brain, although there is some evidence that AIDS does not appear to induce structural changes (LeVay, 1993; see also: Bem, 1996; Zucker & Bradley, 1995) ...

While the data on hormone effects are mixed, the link between genetic factors and homosexual orientation in adulthood is now well established - even if there is disagreement over its interpretation. The most compelling evidence comes from studies of identical and related twins. As described in Chapter 2 and in more detail in Chapter 12 (Individual Differences), identical twins have all the same genes, while sibling twins, like regular siblings, share only about half of the genes. If identical twins are more similar in some way than related twins, then that trait has a genetic or inherited component (provided that other factors can be excluded, such as different treatment of identical and related twins by parents).

In a study of gay men who had twin brothers, it was found that 52% of their identical twin brothers were also gay, compared with just 22% among sibling twin brothers (Bailey & Pillard, 1991). A similar study of lesbians found that 48% of their identical twin sisters were also lesbians, compared with just 16% of sibling twin sisters. In addition, only 6% of the adoptive sisters of these women were lesbians, which also points to the role of the genetic link (Bailey et al., 1993). Finally, an analysis of 114 families of gay men, combined with a chromosome analysis of 40 families with two gay brothers, strongly points to a genetic marker of homosexuality on the X chromosome - men get it from their mother. Thus, gay men have more relatives on the mother's side of gay men than on the father's side (Hamer & Copeland, 1994; Hamer et al., 1993).

Theory "The exotic becomes erotic." Recently, a theory has been proposed that gives a crucial role to life experience and attempts to integrate the data presented here. This theory of sexual orientation is called "exotic becomes erotic" (Bem D., 1995). It argues, first, that genetic factors (and possibly other biological factors) do not affect adult sexual orientation per se, but do affect a child's temperament and personality traits. As documented in Chapter 12 (“Individual Differences”), approximately half of the variation in most personality traits across individuals can be attributed to genetic differences. In other words, there is strong evidence that most personality traits have a strong genetic or inherited component; these include such characteristics of children's temperament as emotionality, sociability and level of activity (Buss & Plomin, 1984, 1975).

These temperamental features predispose the child to more enjoyment from certain activities: one child will enjoy games without rules or sports competitions in teams; another - calm communication, playing with stones or "classics". Some of these games are more typical for boys, some for girls. Thus, depending on the gender of the child, he will be more prone to sexual compatibility or incompatibility. As shown in table. 10.2, children also tend to make friends who share their gaming preferences; for example, a child (boy or girl) who is wary of team sports will avoid playing with boys and prefer girls as playmates. Accordingly, children with sexual compatibility will feel closer and more comfortable with children of the same gender; children with gender incompatibility will feel closer and more comfortable with children of the opposite sex.

<Рис. Согласно теории Бема, «экзотическое становится эротическим»: ребенок, не вписывающийся в гендерную схему, будет чувствовать себя наиболее адекватно и наиболее комфортно с детьми противоположного пола.>

According to the theory under consideration, dissimilarity and discomfort cause general (asexual) excitability. In a female child, this excitability may be felt as mild fear or apprehension in the presence of boys; in a male child, it can be felt as antipathy or contempt for the presence of girls ("girls are nasty"). The most striking case is the "sissy" boy who is bullied and harassed by other boys for his sexual incompatibility and who therefore experiences intense excitement in their presence due to fear or suppressed anger. A tomboy girl who is shunned by her peers may feel a similar emotionally charged excitement. However, the most common case is a child who simply experiences mild excitability in the presence of peers that are unlike him.

Finally, this theory says that general excitability in subsequent years is transformed into erotic arousal or sexual desire after the root cause of this excitement weakens or disappears. Support for this last step in the entire process comes in part from laboratory studies in which male subjects were physiologically aroused in one of several non-sexual ways (for example, running on the spot, watching a video of a comedy series, or hunting a grizzly bear). When these men were then shown footage of an attractive woman, they found her more attractive and expressed more interest in asking her out or kissing her than men who were not physiologically aroused. Besides, it didn't matter what exactly caused the initial arousal. This general result has been replicated in a number of studies (Allen et al., 1989; White & Kight, 1984; Dutton & Aron, 1974; White, Fishbein & Rutstein, 1981). In short, general physiological excitability can subsequently be experienced and interpreted as sexual arousal, or actually turn into it.

Conversely, the theory implies that when children interact with peers with whom they feel quite comfortable, excitement does not arise (or, perhaps, it fades away). For example, children with sexual compatibility make comfortable but non-erotic friendships with people of the same sex, and children with sexual incompatibility make comfortable but non-erotic friendships with people of the opposite sex. Only the exotic becomes erotic. This is indirectly supported by the observation that boys and girls raised collectively in communities (kibbutzim) in Israel rarely marry each other, because they feel too much like brothers and sisters (Shepher, 1971).

The same process explains why almost all men of the Sambi tribe are heterosexual in adulthood, despite the fact that all adolescence is spent in homosexual activities. While most sambi boys enjoy their homosexual activities, the close male context in which all of this happens does not evoke highly charged homoerotic or romantic feelings; while boys are taught that women are low and dangerous - and this increases their erotic attraction to women. In general, this theory proclaims that heterosexuality will prevail in all times and cultures, since virtually all societies establish a gender-based division of labor that separates men and women and makes them dissimilar, exotic, and therefore erotic for each other.

Other authors have also suggested that while similarity and intimacy can promote friendship and compatibility, it is dissimilarity, unfamiliarity, and a sense of exoticism that ignite sexual arousal and / or romantic feelings (see, for example, Bell, 1982; Tripp, 1987). Ethologists have even noted the effect of dissimilarity on the choice of sexual partners in different species of animals. As indicated in the section “At the forefront of psychological research,” some species prefer mates who are similar but not identical to the subject of imprinting they encountered before puberty; a sexual partner only slightly different from such an object is perceived as the most desirable. Ethologists conclude that such a preference pattern prevents intimate mating, since a sexual partner who looks identical to the imprinted object may turn out to be a close relative.

The more general point here is that just because behavior is supposed to be reproductively winning, it does not follow that evolution must “hard-code” it into the schema of the species. Let's go back to the ducks described in the section on instincts and imprinting. It is obvious that mating with other ducks is reproductively advantageous for ducks. Yet if they are fed by a different kind of mother, they prefer her to another duck; they will even prefer humans if they are the first moving object they see when they hatch. As long as the environment often enough supports reproductively successful behavior, it does not need to be programmed in the genes. And just as ducklings in the overwhelming majority of cases meet a mother duck, so human societies make sure that men and women see each other dissimilar enough often to be sure that this species will not disappear from the earth. It has even been said that lesbian aunts and gay uncles, by raising their nephews and nieces, help our species further develop (Wilson, 1978).

As we read this chapter, we have repeatedly seen that the psychological and biological causes that control many human motives are so closely intertwined that they merge into a single stream of events. Not only biological processes affect psychological motives such as hunger or thirst, but psychological processes or experiences affect motivation and, through feedback, determine physiological responses. For example, repeated use of drugs to which addiction develops can cause irreversible changes in the nervous system. It is more common for us to choose certain types of food or beverages that we prefer, primarily as a result of learning, and even the degree of satiety we feel as we fill our stomachs is influenced by prior experience. Our social preferences are determined primarily by the consequences of previous social interactions with certain people. When it comes to motivational processes, biology and psychology cease to be separate areas from each other, but become two aspects of control, the constant interaction of which guides our motivational processes.

Summary

1. Motivational states guide and activate our behavior. We can consciously choose whether to act according to the motive, but the processes that directly control motivational states precede the conscious choice. They arise from two sources: internal needs and external stimuli.

2. Incentives exist in the outside world: these include, for example, food, water, sexual partners, drugs. The motivator is the goal of motivated behavior and, as a rule, when it is achieved, it acts as a reward. While some motivators, such as sugary foods when we are hungry, are powerful motivators in themselves, most motivators become motivators through learning.

3. Many types of natural reinforcing agents can activate the mesolimbic dopamine system in the brain. The work of this neural mechanism is the neural basis of all reward function. When artificially activated by reinforcing drugs or electrical impulses, the motivation for both natural and artificial stimuli increases. Changes in this system caused by repeated use of drugs that activate it may be part of the cause of addiction.

4. Factors of physiological need contribute to maintaining homeostasis - maintaining the constancy of the internal state. Homeostasis is formed by several components: a reference value or a tuning point for an ideal internal state; sensory signal of the current internal state; comparison of the reference value with a sensory signal and the response by which the current internal state approaches the reference.

5. An example of homeostasis is the regulation of our body temperature. The controlled variable is blood temperature, and its sensors are located in different parts of the body, including the hypothalamus. The ideal value is established in the hypothalamus; there is also a comparator (comparison device). Corrections are carried out either by automatic physiological reactions (for example, body tremors), or voluntary behavioral reactions (for example, putting on a sweater).

6. Thirst is another homeostatic motive. There are two adjustable variables: intracellular fluid and extracellular fluid. Loss of intracellular fluid is detected by osmotic sensors, which are neurons in the hypothalamus that respond to dehydration. The loss of extracellular fluid is detected by blood pressure sensors, which are neurons located in the thick veins and organs of the body that respond to a drop in pressure. Intracellular and extracellular signals act in parallel to create thirst.

7. The evolution of hunger has created an environment that allows us to choose the type of nutrient. Human beings have innate taste preferences (for example, for sweets) and aversions (for example, for bitter) that guide our food choices. In addition, we can acquire through learning many different preferences and aversions. Homeostatic hunger signals, which occur when low calorie fuels such as glucose are left in our body, create an appetite by making a person perceive food stimuli as more attractive and pleasurable.

8. Hunger is controlled primarily by homeostatic signals of lack and satiety. Certain neurons in the brain, especially in the brainstem and hypothalamus, detect a lack of available glucose and trigger hunger. Other nutrient detectors, especially those located in the liver, detect increased energy storage levels and induce satiety. The satiety signal in the form of the hormone cholecystokinin is released by the digestive system to relieve hunger and stop eating.

9. Two areas in the brain are important for arousing hunger: the lateral hypothalamus and the ventromedial hypothalamus. Destruction of the lateral hypothalamus leads to malnutrition; destruction of the ventromedial hypothalamus leads to overeating. Although initially these areas were considered centers of hunger and satiety, the feeling of hunger is not eliminated by damage to any of them. Another interpretation of these effects is that the lateral and ventromedial regions of the hypothalamus mutually influence the homeostatic point of body weight adjustment. Damage to the lateral hypothalamus can lower the tuning point, while damage to the ventromedial hypothalamus can increase it. The appetite-altering effects of dietary supplements may in part be attributed to their effect on these areas of the hypothalamus.

10. People become obese because: a) they are genetically predisposed to being overweight; b) they overeat (for psychological reasons). The influence of genes is manifested in fat cells, metabolic rate and tuning points. With regard to overeating and obesity, obese people seem to overeat when they break their diet, eat more when emotionally aroused, and they are more sensitive than people of normal weight to external signs of hunger. In the treatment of obesity, extreme dieting is ineffective because abstinence from food leads to subsequent overeating and slows down the metabolic rate. The best thing seems to work by acquiring new, consistent eating habits and participating in an exercise program.

11. Anorexia nervosa is characterized by extreme weight loss due to self-imposed restrictions. Anorexia is 20 times more common in women than in men. It can be attributed to a distorted view of the body, when anorexic person mistakenly believes that she looks too fat. Possible causes of anorexia include personality factors (such as struggles for autonomy), an over-emphasis on thinness in women, and biological problems (such as hypothalamic dysfunction). Bulimia is characterized by intermittent episodes of rampant food consumption followed by attempts to get rid of excess food through vomiting or laxatives. Possible causes again include personality factors (eg depression), society’s emphasis on being thin, and biological factors (eg lack of the neurotransmitter serotonin).

12. Prenatal hormone exposure affects sexual development. If the gonads of the embryo are producing enough androgens, it will have a male pattern of genital and brain development. If there are few or no androgens, the embryo will have a female pattern of genital and brain development. In various animal species, prenatal hormone exposure has an extremely strong influence on sexual behavior in adulthood. In humans, prenatal hormone exposure appears to be less important, although it does play a role in subsequent sexual behavior. In cases where the hormonal effects on the embryo correspond to one sex, and the social role and gender after birth are typical for the other sex (due to hormonal imbalance, prenatal drug exposure, or an accident shortly after birth), the development of a person will be most consistent with the postpartum social sex.

13. Female hormones (estrogen and progesterone) and male hormones (androgens) are responsible for changes in the body during puberty, but play only a limited role in a person's sexual arousal. In lower species, on the other hand, hormones significantly control sexual behavior. Early social experiences with parents and peers have a large impact on adult sexuality in primates and humans. Monkeys raised in isolation develop sexual problems in adulthood. In humans, cultural norms are also external determinants of adult sexuality. Although Western societies have become increasingly flexible about female and male gender roles over the past 30 years, the attitudes of men and women towards sex and intimacy still differ.

14. Recent research supports claims that biological, genetic, hormonal or neurological factors may in part determine the heterosexual or homosexual orientation of specific individuals, but the scientific evidence to support this view is not conclusively established. It also remains unknown whether biological factors directly influence sexual orientation or whether they contribute to the development of other individual characteristics, such as gender conformity, that indirectly influence the development of sexual orientation.