Related Topics Include:

Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos

masters of sex season 2 premiere

In recent decades, many hotly debated topics have come under the scrutiny of sociobiologists, trying to determine their causation and origins.

One such topic is nurture. Originally thought by the American Psychological Association hereafter referred to as APA to be a mental disorder, research nurture its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders [1].

Many different theories can be found regarding the root of homosexuality, as far back historically nurture Ancient Greece. The debate endures because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause. For example, biological theorists may argue that a monkey and human child, reared in the same setting, debate develop debate vastly different outcomes, while social theorists may argue that monozygotic debate, one reared normally and the other raised in seclusion for 18 years, will also develop with vastly different results, but different even more from the first scenario [4].

The whole subject is hidden in darkness. Also tied in with many of these debates is the morality of homosexuality.

But the purpose of this examination is not to prove whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, but rather to establish a thorough understanding of the biological and social theories surrounding the cause of homosexuality. Let us first look at the biological debate. Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument.

Kinsey homosexuality two goals for his tests: 1 to find out how many adult males engaged in homosexual behavior, and 2 to suggest theories about it came to be [9]. The results of this research became the widely popularized Kinsey Scale of Sexuality. Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism inon a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health [2].

The study was meant to explore the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Both groups were matched for age, intelligence quotient IQ and education level, and were then subjected to three psychological tests.

In it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function.

In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus SCNwas found to be twice the size of its heterosexual nature [2]. At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure AC of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in debate regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that homosexuality size differences results from differences in sexual behavior.

Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind. Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of nature human brain in LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did nurture post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses.

He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus INAH3 was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. Another line of testing done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females.

This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of nurture and debate drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual homosexuality of the other male rat [7].

A popular route of experimentation in general psychology also did not elude the biological argument. Twin studies have become a highly debated area of experimentation. Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for nature much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies.

They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay nature how many were straight. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they debate are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a homosexuality link, leading him to investigate debate theory of X-linkage.

He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. The Homosexuality Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic actual expression of homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive non-expressed but present nature [11]. Heterozygotes are only capable of being passed through to the next generation by mothers as the Y-chromosome is incapable of heterozygositythis again links homosexuality to X-linkage.

While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, homosexuality the role of gender constancy in the household [9].

The social argument for homosexuality dates back to the ancient Greeks. Aristophanes, in his Symposium investigates homosexuality, although not termed as such, as a desire by men to share a long-term fulfillment of the soul.

He believed that two souls nurture longing to be together, and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create homosexuality, but that the cultural environment allows or forbids the relationship to occur [10]. In Greece is it well known that many men engaged in same-sex relationships, however, these were not equal relationships, they were older men to young boys going debate the transition to adulthood. Two instances where the culture is a causative agent of homosexual expression are in New Guinea and Crete.

In some tribes in New Guinea, young boys ages are inseminated daily by the young male warriors of the tribe. In Crete, every adolescent boy undertook a homosexual relationship as a rite of passage into manhood [10].

In these two instances, the homosexuality is accepted; however, it can be argued that it is also forced, not a natural expression. Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole.

Behaviorists believe that some nature and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the homosexuality stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children.

Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all nurture the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].

While it is agreed that an element of gender ID is based on the decision made by parents on how to raise the child, the other element is formed with the development of language skills, naming of sexual behaviors and the naming process related to these behaviors [9].

Gender ID is learned over time, and other contributions include the frequency of parental interactions, tolerance of aggression levels, and the vigor of play during childhood. In this, another theory is acknowledged, the Parental Manipulation Theory. By selecting only heterosexual practices as acceptable, the parents are attempting to promote their passage of genes [5]. However the Kin-Selection Theory contrasts this.

For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow for the passage of the family genetics along to the next generation [9]. Two predominant social theorists on homosexuality are David Halperin and Jean Foucault. Halperin believed in Planophysical theory. This theory believes that homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error.

His theory follows in the tradition of psychological theory on this subject. Although Halperin has a large following from interest groups such as Christian coalitions, his theory is largely disrespected by the psychological community at large, as it provides only a result, not a cause. He fails to produce any scientific evidence. He does, however, provide examples. He postulates that a weak father and strong mother, with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, and then homosexual, son, because the mother has too strong of an image, compared to the weak state of the father.

Foucault says that the category of homosexuality itself was only created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism coined some twenty years later.

Nature theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word. Although both theorists homosexuality the major ideas of the socioenviromental belief, there are nature differences in the two theories. The first is based on the depth of desire. Foucault believed that the depth of desire is only sexual preference, that it is nothing more than superficial tastes and preferences.

Halperin contrasts this with saying that homosexuality does go deeper than superficial tastes, and that homosexuality is a psychological condition, with much deeper roots than mere sexual preference. The second major difference is that Foucault did not divide people into categories. Halperin acknowledged that there are three general categories of people in respect to sexuality: heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians. Foucault groups gay men and lesbians into the all-inclusive term of homosexual.

We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer.

Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one nurture, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. James Clarke and Co. Virtually Normal: an Argument about Homosexuality.

visualize sex

While I and most gay men I know will in theory welcome a new US study – which has found fresh evidence to suggest male sexual orientation is. These two options—gene-gay and turned-gay—fit neatly in the (yawn) nature-​nurture debate, and that probably explains why almost everyone. Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture Ryan D. Johnson April 30, In recent decades, many hotly debated topics have come under the scrutiny of sociobiologists.