Dr. Brad Bowins

Attempts to explain homosexuality from a psychological perspective have primarily consisted of psychoanalytic and social learning. Psychoanalytic theories focus on sex role inversion, whereby a child identifies with the gender role of the other sex parent, and acquires the attraction pattern of that parent: A male identifies with his mother’s gender and develops attraction to males, and a female identifies with her father’s gender and develops attraction to females. A rejecting father and often overly dominant mother were often seen as the cause of sex role inversion for males. One of the fatal flaws of this perspective is that sexual orientation and gender role are not linked despite what people think. In other words, very “macho” men and feminine females often identify with being homosexual. Another flaw is that research supporting these theories was highly biased. Social learning theories argue that characteristics of the social environment form sexual orientation based on reinforcement and punishment effects. Hence, if a male child’s social environment reinforces feminine behavior, then the child will become homosexual. Note the role inversion aspect. None of these psychological theories has proven valid for gender identity or sexual orientation. An interesting path analysis by Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981) examined all hypothesized paths based on psychological theories to homosexuality, and found essentially zero support for these theories! A more detailed look at these theories and the path analysis can be found in the Psychological Theories chapter of Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation.

The sexual orientation categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality are typically viewed as absolute, although prior to industrialization neither designation was recognized, and sexual orientation was viewed in various other ways. We all see things according to the times we live in, and certainly this is true for sexual orientation. You might ask, why worry about how we view it? Beyond the value of discovering the truth, the way we have framed sexual orientation has created a massively neurotic scenario, and fuels discrimination. Assume that you identify with being heterosexual but have some fantasies of same-sex contact or actually engage in it. Since you are heterosexual how can this be? Are you actually gay? However, since you’re mostly attracted to other-sex individuals you can’t be gay. Take a person who identifies with being homosexual who feels some desire for an other-sex individual they really like and might want to have children with. The same confusing thoughts often follow. Maybe the person in each example is bisexual, but in a world of homosexual and heterosexual categories having both identities is not easy to understand. You see what I mean about neurotic. Then there is discrimination based upon the in-group and out-group distinctions that follow from this dichotomized way of viewing sexual orientation. Perhaps the frustration some feel related to the neurotic way we frame sexual orientation produces anger, worsening discrimination. Bisexual individuals frequently experience more discrimination because they often experience negative reactions from both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yes, we have created a neurotic scenario and one that generates discrimination, and is simply wrong!

In my book Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation I address the problem of how we frame sexual orientation, and propose an alternative. In line with how false the designations of homosexual and heterosexual are, no theory to date has shown how homosexuality could have evolved; many try but they are as full of holes as a spaghetti strainer. A major part of the answer is that we all have homoerotic and heteroerotic capacities representing side-by-side abilities organized dimensionally—From low to high. During our evolution both capacities served a function, and in support of this proposition, homoerotic behavior has been found in countless species of insects, reptiles, amphibians, fish, rodents, mammals, and primates. Indeed, the more that researchers look with open eyes, the more instances of homoerotic behavior they find. For primates, humans included, homoerotic behavior serves the functions of alliance formation, tension reduction, and reconciliation in an evolutionary context, and even today in many instances. Heteroerotic contact can also facilitate these functions in certain instances, and of course other-sex contact fosters reproduction. What this all means practically for us is that if you experience a homoerotic fantasy or engage, it is very natural, simply an expression of your level of homoerotic motivation. Since homoerotic and heteroerotic motivations are separate, homoerotic activity does not impact on your other-sex desires. No neuroticism needed! If you fantasize and/or engage more with other-sex individuals, it simply means that you have a higher heteroerotic motivation than homoerotic motivation.