Dr. Brad Bowins

We love to set up discrete categories to simplify information processing, whereas natural events tend to occur in a continuous fashion as a spectrum. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are yet another installment of our propensity to create discrete entities. Alfred Kinsey way back in the 1950’s accurately described how we set up sexual orientation as discrete entities, whereas it is a spectrum. He placed homosexuality and heterosexuality on opposite poles of the same spectrum, capturing the continuous nature. Unfortunately, this particular arrangement fails to capture the true nature of sexual orientation, because homosexuality and heterosexuality trade off against each other, meaning that bisexuals represented by the mid-section must be less hetero than heterosexuals and less homo than homosexuals, when bisexuals frequently have robust motivations of both forms. What makes sense and is described in the Dimensions Of Sexual Orientation chapter of Outing the TRUTH About Sexual Orientation, is separate homoerotic and heteroerotic dimensions: Bisexuals have robust motivations for both behavioral propensities, “heterosexuals” heteroerotic >> homoerotic motivation, and “homosexuals” homoerotic >> heteroerotic motivation. It makes sense and aligns with how nature favors continuums, but many still prefer to see discrete homosexual and heterosexual categories that really only contribute to the disorientation of sexual orientation!

Although seemingly more promising than psychological theories, biologically based ones struggle to explain sexual orientation. While hormones can influence masculine and feminine behavior, they do not show any clear impact on sexual orientation; it is important to appreciate that gender role inversion is not linked to homosexuality. Based on early research, brain structures and namely the hypothalamus, possibly underlie homosexuality, but none has stood up to repeated research. Then there is the possibility of “gay” genes that has also come up empty handed. Biological explanations have been proposed to explain the evolutionary paradox: How could homosexuality not leading to reproduction ever have evolved? These theories often take the perspective that even though the reproductive success of gay men (they do not consider gay females) is diminished, the reproductive success of relatives is enhanced. For example, gay men by being altruistic help relatives succeed. Really? There is absolutely no evidence that gay men are more altruistic than the average person, and we can all think of gay men we know who are as selfish as the rest of us. Another evolutionary perspective is that “gay” genes (recall none identified) assist the man in being a better parent, such as being more nurturing. Beyond diminishing the “masculine” father role, this approach entails gender role inversion found to be false. Biological perspectives then end up no better than psychological ones at explaining homosexuality (see the Biological Theories chapter of Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation), strongly suggesting that we are way off the mark in assuming that homosexuality is a real entity.

Discrimination and persecution of non-heterosexual individuals is an ongoing issue, and several countries still prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality. Why though?

We have a tendency very embedded in our psyche, derived from our evolution in hunting-gathering groups, to distinguish in-group from out-group members. Hence, whenever there is any basis for this distinction we define it and typically over-value attributes of the in-group and diminish attributes of the out-group. Applied to sexual orientation, we have socially constructed it into distinct heterosexual and homosexual identities, thereby fueling in-group/out-group distinctions. Given how the majority of people identify with the sexual orientation identity of heterosexuality, and homosexuality is perceived as lesser than because it does not lead to reproduction, it is inevitable that discrimination will transpire towards non-heterosexuals.

Now those who are paying attention will note that I said, “we have socially constructed” sexual orientation identities. Throughout recorded time sexual orientation has been understood in various ways, and only more recently as distinct identities. Even sexology researchers buy into this social construction and never really look at what is actually going on. In Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation, I demonstrate how we all have homoerotic and heteroerotic motivations organized as separate dimensions, each person having a given level of motivation on both dimensions. What this means is that we are all bisexual at the core, and there is no actual homosexual and heterosexual identities, at least not from a scientific perspective. Now if we all have homoerotic and heteroerotic motivations varying in strength, it follows that it is ludicrous to create in-group and out-group distinctions. Discrimination and persecution applied to sexual orientation should then vanish, and rightfully so. But that sensible reality will eliminate all the drama we also seem to love, so many prefer to live in a delusional world regarding sexual orientation. Sad but seemingly true.

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.