|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Classifying sexual orientationsPeople are typically classified as heterosexual if their sexual focus is primarily people of the opposite sex/gender to their own, homosexual if it is people of the same sex/gender, and bisexual if it is both men and women. The less formal terms "straight", "gay", and "lesbian" are more commonly used by people to describe themselves and their friends and family, or to emphasize sexual orientation as a social identity. The discipline of sexology popularized the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual", which are sometimes considered to have a clinical or even pathological tone when used outside of a scientific setting. The term asexual can be used to describe people with no sexual interest at all, or those who have a sex drive, but not sexual attraction. The term celibacy or sexual abstinence is for those who are not sexually active. Asexuality and celibacy are not compatible terms, as celibacy implies a deliberate effort to refrain from one's desire for sex. Autosexuality can be considered an orientation with a sexual focus on oneself. Monosexuality, a sexual orientation to only one sex/gender, is sometimes used to contrast with bisexuality. New termsFollowing from the 1960s and 1970s sexual revolution in the West, there has been an explosion of open discourse on sexuality by sexual minorities. Since the 1990s, many new terms have been devised by people who find the broad terms "straight", "gay" and "bi" inadequate. Such terms are commonly found on Internet forums, in personal ads, or in literature written by members of sexual minorities, but are rare in the scientific literature. For example, the term pansexuality can describe an individual's attraction which is not based on gender, and can include attraction to transgender and intersex people who may not fit clearly into a binary gender system. Other terms include "fluid" (used by those who don't want to be restricted by a more-specific label); "homoflexible" (for people who consider themselves predominantly homosexual but occasionally open to opposite-sex sexuality) or its complement "heteroflexible"; and "sapiosexual" (attraction to someone's mind as much as their body). Some people use the word queer as an umbrella term to describe any non-normative sexualities and gender expressions, especially homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and intersexuality, but also sometimes BDSM, fetishism, prostitution, and polyamory. However, the word can still be considered a slur. ParaphiliaVarious paraphilias may be seen as a kind of sexual orientation, although they are usually considered orthogonal (unrelated) to the gender-based categories of sexual orientation, and are seen as existing in addition to such orientations. However, some paraphilias may be a more significant focus of an individual's sexuality than the gender of partners. Such paraphilias may include sexual fetishes, sexual exhibitionism, and sexual attraction to animals (zoophilia). This is not true, however, in the case of pedophilia, in which, while some may report attraction to prepubertal individuals of both sexes, there is almost always a preference for males or females. Extensions of the termHani Miletski, a sexologist and author, argued in a "monumental"[3] and "pioneering"[4] reference work and analysis combined with fresh research, that zoosexuality should properly be understood as a sexual orientation, rather than being confused with 'zoophilia' (a paraphilia). Miletski concludes that all three criteria for a sexual orientation proposed by Francoeur (1991)–affectional orientation, sexual fantasy orientation, and erotic orientation–as well as reciprocity of emotion, are met by zoosexuals.[5] This view is supported by Beetz (2002), Donofrio (1996), and others. Beetz adds[6] that zoosexual bonding is "experienced and not chosen" and does not function as a "surrogate", also citing Masters (1962) observations that other than in violent scenarios, animals have often appeared to thrive in relationships with humans. Some individuals, such as Dr. Fred Berlin, have postulated that pedophilia can also qualify as a sexual orientation.[7][8] Measuring an individual's sexual orientationSexual orientation is difficult to measure accurately, for several reasons. In many cultures, there is strong social pressure to self-identify as heterosexual, and thus a person who is not exclusively heterosexual may feel afraid to report their sexual orientation accurately. The question of sexual orientation may inspire strong emotions that interfere with accurate reporting. Finally, some people are not certain of their own sexual orientation, making it more difficult for another person to determine it. Markers of sexual orientation include self-labelling, actual sexual behaviour, sexual fantasy, and a pattern of erotic arousal – a "pattern" being most accurately identified when genital engorgement with blood is measured in response to homoerotic material with penile plethysmography or vaginal photoplethysmography [9]. From at least the late-19th century in Europe, there was speculation that the range of human sexual orientations looked more like a continuum than two or three discrete categories. 28-year-old Berlin sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld published a scheme in 1896 that measured the strength of an individual's sexual desire on two independent 10-point scales, A (homosexual) and B (heterosexual).[10] A heterosexual individual may be A0, B5; a bisexual may be A3, B9; An asexual would be A0, B0; and someone with an intense attraction to both sexes (Pansexual) would be A9, B9. Fifty years later, American sexologist Alfred Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948):
The Kinsey scale measures sexual orientation from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual), with an additional category, X, for those with no sexual attraction to either women or men. Unlike Hirschfeld's scale, the Kinsey scale is one-dimensional. Simon LeVay writes, "it suggests (although Kinsey did not actually believe this) that every person has the same fixed endowment of sexual energy, which he or she then divides up between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction in a ratio indicative of his or her own sexual orientation."[12] In his 1985 book The Bisexual Option, Fritz Klein developed a scale to test his theory that sexual orientation is a "dynamic, multi-variable process" — dynamic in that it may change over time, and multi-variable in that it is composed of various elements, both sexual and non-sexual. Klein took into account sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional and social partners, lifestyle, and self-identification. Each of these variables was measured for the person's past, present, and ideal.[13] Desire, behavior and identityResearchers have variously measured an individual's sexual orientation by asking them how they identify; by ascertaining their sexual attractions; and/or by reporting their sexual behaviour. An individual may be placed in differing categories by these three measures. For example, a married person may identify as straight, but have only homosexual desire; if they are having sex with same-sex partners as well as their spouse, they would also be classified as bisexual by their behaviour. When classifying sexual orientation by behaviour, frequency of contact with either sex may be a factor, whether group sex is admissible as an instance, and whether the occurrence of orgasm, as well as its frequency in terms of total encounters, has any bearing. When classifying by desire, controversial topics include the breadth of attraction to both genders, what "intensity" of attraction is admissible, and whether self-reporting should be solely trusted or whether there should be any manner of "objective" measure. Some newer terminology consciously differentiates between these three aspects. For example, men who have sex with men, or "MSM", describes behavior only. Same-sex attraction describes only feelings and desires. Some examples may help clarify the distinctions between desire, identity, and behavior:
Sexual orientation and gender identityThe earliest writers on sexual orientation usually understood it to be intrinsically linked to sex. For example, it was thought that a typical female-bodied person who is attracted to women would have masculine attributes, and vice versa.[14] This understanding was shared by most of the significant theorists of sexual orientation from the mid-19th to early 20th century, such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Magnus Hirschfeld, Havelock Ellis, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, as well as many gender variant homosexual people themselves. However, this understanding of homosexuality as sexual inversion was disputed at the time, and through the second half of the 20th century, gender identity came to be increasingly seen as a phenomenon distinct from sexual orientation. Transgender and cisgender people may be attracted to men, women, or both, although the prevalence of different sexual orientations is quite different in these two populations (see sexual orientation of transwomen). An individual homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual person may be masculine, feminine, or androgynous, and in addition, many members and supporters of lesbian and gay communities now see the "gender-conforming heterosexual" and the "gender-nonconforming homosexual" as negative stereotypes. However, studies by J Michael Bailey and KJ Zucher have purported to find that a majority of gay men and lesbians report being gender-nonconforming during their childhood years.[15] A definitional problem arises with the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" when either the subject or object of desire is transgender or intersex. Is a transwoman who is attracted to other women a lesbian? What about her female partner? The majority of transgender people today would describe this relationship as lesbian, but scientists (especially in the past) have tended to characterise it as heterosexual, interpreting the sex of the transwoman as male, and basing the definition of sexual orientation on biological sex rather than social gender. Others would interpret the sexual orientation differently depending on whether the transwoman is "pre-operative" or "post-operative". Difficulties in making these judgements can be seen, for example, in debates about whether female-attracted transmen are a part of the lesbian community. (See Homosexuality and transgender) For these reasons, the terms gynephilia and androphilia are occasionally (but increasingly) used when referring to the sexual orientation of transgender and intersex people (and occasionally, cisgender people), because rather than focusing on the sex or gender of the subject, they only describe that of the object of their attraction. The third common term that describes sexual orientation, bisexuality, makes no claim about the subject's sex or gender identity. (See also Pansexuality) Sexual orientation is further complicated by more recent non-binary understandings of both sex (male, female, or intersex) and gender (man, woman, transgender, third gender, or gender variant). Sociologist Paula Rodriguez Rust (2000) argues for a more multifaceted definition of sexual orientation: "...Most alternative models of sexuality...define sexual orientation in terms of dichotomous biological sex or gender.... Most theorists would not eliminate the reference to sex or gender, but instead advocate incorporating more complex nonbinary concepts of sex or gender, more complex relationships between sex, gender, and sexuality, and/or additional nongendered dimensions into models of sexuality."[16] Demographics of sexual orientationMain article: Demographics of sexual orientation The multiple aspects of sexual orientation and the boundary-drawing problems already described create methodological challenges for the study of the demographics of sexual orientation. Determining the frequency of various sexual orientations in real-world populations is difficult and controversial. In the oft-cited and oft-criticized Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), by Alfred C. Kinsey et. al., people were asked to rate themselves on a scale from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual. Kinsey reported that when the individuals' behavior as well as their identity are analyzed, most people appeared to be at least somewhat bisexual - i.e., most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. According to Kinsey, only a minority (5-10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual. Conversely, only an even smaller minority can be considered fully bisexual (with an equal attraction to both sexes). Kinsey's methods have been criticized as flawed, particularly with regard to the randomness of his sample population, which included a large number of prison inmates. Nevertheless, Paul Gebhard, subsequent director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, reexamined the data in the Kinsey Reports and concluded that accounting for major statistical objections barely affected the results. Most modern scientific surveys find that the majority of people report a mostly heterosexual orientation. However, the relative percentage of the population that reports a homosexual orientation varies with differing methodologies and selection criteria. Most of these statistical findings are in the range of 2.8 to 9% of males, and 1 to 5% of females for the United States[17] — this figure can be as high as 12% for some large cities and as low as 1% percent for rural areas). In gay villages such as The Castro in San Francisco, California, the concentration of self-identified homosexual people can exceed 40%. Almost all of these studies have found that homosexual males occur roughly at twice the rate of homosexual females. Estimates for the percentage of the population that identify as bisexual vary widely based on the type of questions asked. Some studies only consider a person bisexual if they are nearly equally attracted to both sexes, and others consider a person bisexual if they are at all attracted to the same sex (for otherwise mostly heterosexual persons) or to the opposite sex (for otherwise mostly homosexual persons). A very small percentage of people are not sexually attracted to anyone (asexuality). Causes and malleability of sexual orientationMain articles: Choice and sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation Considerable debate continues over what biological and/or psychological variables produce sexual orientation in humans, such as genes and the exposure of certain levels of hormones to fetuses. A dialog remains in progress on whether that orientation is discretionary, largely derived from the theologies of Christianity and Islam. Freud and many others, particularly in psychoanalytic traditions, speculate that formative childhood experiences (i.e. nurture) help produce sexual orientation. Most specialists follow the general conclusion of Alfred Kinsey regarding the sexual continuum, according to which a minority of humans are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and that the majority are bisexual, that is, that the norm is to experience a mixture homoerotic and heteroerotic feelings, each kind to a different degree. Interestingly, Kinsey himself—along with current "queer" activist groups—focus on the historicity and personal fluidity of sexual orientation. Kinsey's studies consistently showed sexual orientation as something that evolves in many directions over a person's lifetime. Law”Sexual orientation“ is also a legal term. It is commonly used in anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits discrimination based on homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. Sexual orientation and mental healthThere are at least two possible questions that can be asked about this topic: first, can people with certain sexual orientations be considered to have a mental illness, simply by virtue of their sexual orientation? Second, is there a correlation and/or a causal relationship between certain sexual orientations and any types of mental illness? Sexual orientation as mental illnessClinically, heterosexual acts are considered most common in today's cultures (statistically most likely), but the concept of "normal" and "abnormal" with its connotations of sickness or moral judgment are no longer considered valid by most medical professionals. Some groups, often for religious reasons, maintain that homosexuals as such do not exist and that homosexuality is actually an unnatural choice, illness or addiction. Many of these groups support reparative therapy to end homosexual desire or repress its physical expression. They may also advocate stricter laws to prevent homosexual activity and the public recognition of homosexual relationships. One major advocate of this line of thought is the American National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which rejects the consensus of the major psychological associations in removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses in 1973. In 1998, the American Psychological Association stated that the psychological profession's view on homosexuality and mental health was, "the reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." Relationship between sexual orientation and mental illnessThe Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in its January 2001 issue — citing a government-sponsored study of 5,998 adults in the Netherlands aged 18 to 64 — that "psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. ...The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders." The study asserted that "the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant" than in other countries.[18] The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association agreed in an article published July 18, 2002 by GayWired.com: "Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns. Culturally sensitive mental health services targeted specifically at gay men may be more effective in the prevention, early detection, and treatment of these conditions."[19] GLMA also reported a higher prevalence of substance abuse. "Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population...includ(ing) a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ('poppers'), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines." In the same article, GLMA also reported "it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men" and that "recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men." The American Psychological Association has found that such differences are the result of the sense of alienation felt by many gay people.[citation needed] The APA also states that homosexuals are as mentally healthy as heterosexuals, based on Evelyn Hooker's pioneer research.[4] Morality, religion, and choiceOngoing debate about the morality of same-sex relations often references beliefs about whether sexual orientation is a choice or a fixed attribute. There are several different views on the subject, the major ones of which are:
There is a strong correlation between belief in choice and disapproval of homosexuality. (Whether or not there is a causal relationship in either direction is a matter of debate.) A 2003 Pew Research phone survey of Americans reported that about 50% of people who think sexual orientation is fixed at birth support same-sex marriage, compared to about 20% of people who think it is a preference.[20] The Pew report shows acceptance of homosexuality increasing over the past 30 years, and that young people have greater acceptance than older Americans. Likewise, religious affiliation and beliefs correlate strongly with beliefs about sexual orientation. 60% of "secular" Americans, 46% of white Catholics, 43% of white mainline Protestants, 27% of black Protestants, and 20% of evangelical Protestants expressed a favorable opinion of gay men in the Pew survey. 66% of "secular" Americans, 54% of white Catholics, 50% of white mainline Protestants, 26% of black Protestants, and 23% of evangelical Protestants replied that sexual orientation could not be changed. Religious beliefs were the most common reason given for disapproval of same-sex marriage. Individual religious sects vary widely in their views on sexual orientation, from acceptance of people of all orientations, to advocating of the death penalty for homosexual and heterosexual people who violate certain other norms. For more information, see:
Sexual orientation as a constructionBecause sexual orientation is complex and multi-dimensional, some academics and researchers (especially in Queer studies) have argued that sexual orientation is a completely historical and social construction. In 1976 the historian Michel Foucault argued that homosexuality as a concept did not exist as such in the 18th century; that people instead spoke of "sodomy" (which involved specific sexual acts regardless of the sex of the actors) as a crime that was often ignored but sometimes punished severely (see sodomy law). He further argued that it was in the 19th century that homosexuality came into existence as practitioners of emerging sciences and arts sought to classify and analyze different forms of sexuality. Finally, Foucault argues that it was this emerging discourse that allowed some to claim that homosexuality as a human identity. Foucault's suggestions about Western sexuality led other historians and anthropologists to abandon the 19th century project of classifying different forms of sexual behavior or sexual orientation to a new project that asks "what is sexuality and how do people in different places and at different times understand their bodies and desires?" For example, they have argued that the famous case of some Melanesian societies in which adult men and pre-pubescent and adolescent boys engage in oral sex is not comparable to similar acts in the United States or Europe; that Melanesians do not understand or explain such acts in terms of sexual desire or as a sexual behavior, and that it in fact reflects a culture with a very different notion of sex, sexuality, and gender. Some historians have made similar claims about homosexuality in ancient Greece; that behaviors that appear to be homosexual in modern Western societies may have been understood by ancient Greeks in entirely different ways. At stake in these new views are two different points. One is the claim that human sexuality is extraordinarily plastic, and that specific notions about the body and sexuality are socially constructed. The other is the fundamentally anthropological claim of cultural relativism: that human behavior should be interpreted in the context of its cultural environment, and that the language of one culture is often inappropriate for describing practices or beliefs in another culture. A number of contemporary scholars who have come to reject Foucault's specific arguments about Western sexuality nevertheless have accepted these basic theoretical and methodological points. Critics of the strong social constructionism view generally hold that Foucault's ideas are out-dated and have been proven inaccurate by means of scientific inquiry and further historical exploration of sexuality in cultures. For example, the notion of sexual orientation being a human construct is seen to contradict current mainstream scientific findings that those of different orientations are anatomically distinct from each other and that is why they have their own separate attractions, i.e., a man who exclusively loved other men in ancient Greece is biologically homosexual, since certain physical body parts are different in homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals, just as a man who identifies as gay in modern times is the same scientifically speaking. These medical findings however are not uncontroversial themselves. Sexuality historians in modern times are increasingly abandoning the construction view. Louis Crompton has argued that if Focault were still alive today he would revise his thesis in light of the scientific factors found largely after his death and due to recently studied historical documents that shed light on exclusive homosexuality. For example, during Foucault's time it was largely thought that all ancient Greek men practiced bisexuality in the institution of pederasty, however greater scholarship on the subject shows that, indeed, a minority of Greek males never married and continued to have sex exclusively with other men of their own age. And other findings include that during the Middle Ages in Europe when sodomy was harshly prosecuted sub-cultures developed of men who loved other men and often these men identified with each other in a community, something analogous to the modern gay identity. For more information, see: The fluid boundary between friendship and homosexualitySome historians and researchers argue that the emotional and affectionate activities associated with sexual-orientation words (gay, straight, etc.) change significantly over time and across cultural boundaries. For example, in many English-speaking nations it is assumed that same-gender kissing, particularly between men, is a sign of homosexuality, whereas various types of same-gender kissing are common expressions of friendship in other nations. Also, many modern and historic cultures have formal ceremonies expressing long-term commitment between same-sex friends, even though homosexuality itself is taboo within the culture.[21] Historians such as Lillian Faderman and Stephanie Coontz believe that even within the history of the United States these cultural norms have changed. The taboo on most physical affection between straight men, according to this view, came into being over the course of the nineteenth century, applying at first only to married men and later to all men.[22] The taboo on some types of affection between women arose more slowly, and stories of infatuation among adolescent girls were published in mainstream magazines as late as 1908.[23] Before the modern era, strong emotion, infatuation, and effusive physical tenderness in friendship were commonly referred to as romantic friendship and were not considered deviant. Faderman argues that although homosexuality was taboo in these eras, same-sex love was nearly universal.[24] As evidence, these historians use written material such as letters and diaries; Faderman also shows how the treatment of same-sex love in literary fiction changed over time. Dictionaries also show a change in the meaning of words such as friend.[25] Coontz notes: Perfectly respectable Victorian women...recorded the ‘furnace blast’ of their ‘passionate attachments’ to each other... They carved their initials into trees, set flowers in front of one another’s portraits, danced together, kissed, [and] held hands...[26] Faderman's and Coontz's hypothesis is a minority view, and the evidence they present is infrequently discussed by other authors. Some argue that romantic friendship was simply a cover for sexual relationships that would be considered gay today. Many proponents of this hypothesis favor LGBT rights or are LGBT themselves (including Faderman, a lesbian, and Coontz, a liberal social historian). See also
References
Further reading
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Sexual orientation" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
|||||||||||||
