The Biology and Spirituality of Human Sexuality
Class 7: The Psychology and Spirituality of Sexual Expression
July 20, 2003
(Revised June 27, 2005)

Introduction

     Review of Last Class. In last week's class, we began to look at the nature or nurture origins of homosexuality exploring the biological and medical aspects of human sexual behavior. We sought to determine whether there is something biologically inherent in homosexual behavior. The reason we looked for evidence of a biological basis for homosexual orientation is because the biblical and traditional approaches to the subject assumed that homosexual activity is a matter solely of choice (see the "History and Background" section of Class 6).

     We first discussed how homosexuality became to be classified by the medical community as a disease, and some of the early treatments employed to treat it. We then took a look at the normal development of the sexes in utero, and how the sex hormone testosterone plays an important role in masculinization of the mammalian brain. Having defined the usual situation of male and female, we then talked about several studies that showed differences between male and female and between homosexual and heterosexual brains. We also looked at the data from twin studies that suggests that something heritable contributes to sexual orientation. Finally we looked at hermaphrodites (intersexuals) because they represent a group that is larger than one would expect in which anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and endocrinological attributes all contribute to the biological phenotype of gender assignment.

     In today's class, we will look primarily at the psychology of sexual orientation. However, remember not to make a mental cause/effect linkage between what we talked about last week in terms of brain differences with psychological make up or spiritual leanings. Human psychology (and presumably spirituality) are very complex, and it would be much too simplistic to assume that a few neuroanatomical structures are determinative of a person's psychological or spiritual makeup. Let's just agree to look at the theories and research that speak to the spiritual and psychological features of human sexuality.

Back to Top

Background

     As noted in the previous class, homosexuality was at one time considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). When the APA reclassified homosexuality from a disorder to a variation in 1973, it created the category of "ego-dystonic homosexuality" to describe individuals who could not embrace their same-sex attractions and might seek treatment for them. [1] At the present time, homosexuality is not classified by the APA as mental disease, but as of 1994, it was still part of the International Classification of Diseases classification system. It was not until 1988 that ego dystonic homosexuality was dropped by the APA from the DSM. And while there is "no credible empirical evidence to warrant the assumption that therapies aimed at altering sexual orientation are successful," [2] because homosexual behavior lies outside the majority (heterosexual) behavior, scientists are interested in learning about its origin(s). (Slide 2; )

     Before "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was removed from the DSM, it was renamed"sexual-orientation distress" or "homosexual orientation distress." These terms foreshadowed the idea that homosexual orientation had something to do with personal "stresses." Today, we'll look at psychology for the origins of that stress, remembering in the back of our minds that a pure split between 'nature' and 'nurture' is artificial, and that things from both spheres are probably operational in all human behaviors - including homosexuality. In this class we will also look at societal and cultural psychological views of homosexual orientation, which in some ways might be more important to our ultimate discussion than the psychological origins of homosexual orientation.

Back to Top

The Incidence of Homosexuality

     One of the questions that we have not directly addressed is the incidence of homosexuality in the general population. I have previously used a range of 2-10% (emphasizing an incidence of about 4% in class), which was based on summary statistics gathered from a variety of sources. At the time, I knew that these numbers were contentious (at least in some circles). (Slide 3; )Although numbers are irrelevant to a moral debate about sexual issues, it is important that we have some idea of the prevalence of homosexuality in order to be better informed. Why? Because some people will declare the Church to be at fault for excluding a large percentage of people in the general population, whereas others will claim that the percentage is low, and therefore unimportant. Knowing what we are talking about in this debate is important - just as important as our theological or moral positions on the subject.

     The incidence that has been "traditionally" reported for male homosexuals is 10%, and this figure is based on data that is nearly a half a century old. Sources within our church have used the 10% figure to promote specific interests and points of view. For example, Bishop Spong has used the 10% figure to try to intimidate conservatives into accepting the idea that because the figure is so high, it must be divinely intended.[3] (Slide 4; )

     In their review of several studies, Stanton and Yarhouse believe the incidence of homosexuality to be at or below 3% for males, and below 2% for females.[4] By way of comparison, in the general population the incidence of phobias (fears) is 14.3%, alcohol abuse and dependence is 13.8%, severe panic is 1.6%, and schizophrenia is 1.5%.[5] (Slide 5; )

     In a 1991 paper, Gonsiorek and Weinrich put the incidence of homosexuality between 4 and 17% of the general population, including males and females. These researchers point out the difficulty of assessing a group that has no identifiable physical characteristic.[6] (Slide 6; )

Back to Top

Psychological Factors That May Contribute to Homosexual Orientation

     Gender Non-Conformity. (Slide 7; )A 1995 study by Bailey and Luckier concluded that homosexuals can recall substantially engaging in more cross-sex-type behavior in childhood than heterosexuals recall. Cross-sex-type behavior includes things like cross dressing and playing with non-gender typical toys. Some have concluded that gender non-conformity relates to homosexual orientation later in life. I would ask whether any kind of association like this is psychological or biological in origin (or both?). Some investigators have attempted to link the lack of appropriate prenatal hormones as the biological basis of this psychological phenomenon. The evidence for this is weak.

     The Psychoanalytic Theory. (Slide 8; ) One predominant theory for the origin of homosexuality is the psychoanalytic theory. The research into this theory was published in the 1960's, 1970's, and early-mid 1980's. Concentrating on men, the theory was that male homosexuality was the result of a failure of the normal development of a secure male identity. If the mother in a relationship "poisons" the relationship between father and son, or if the father is absent or "ineffective," a boy can develop a compromised sense of secure maleness. This later manifests itself in some as an erotic attraction to males. Since the data from these research studies was determined retrospectively, one might ask about the relationship between cause and effect.

     Childhood Sexual Experiences. (Slides 9 and 10; ) Childhood sexual trauma as been proposed as a cause of homosexual orientation in some individuals. In a study of 3500 Americans, 7.4% of men and 3.1% of women reported homosexual orientation and had experienced sexual abuse as children. The incidence in other smaller studies is even higher when bisexuals are included.

     In addition to trauma, childhood sexual experiences not classified as abusive also seem to correlate with homosexual orientation. Twenty-five percent of males who had had male-male sexual exposure between the ages of 5 and 9, and 43% of males between the ages of 10 and 12 declared themselves homosexual later in life. These results suggest that childhood same-sex experiences in males, abusive or not, may correlate with homosexual orientation later in life. However, there is not a one-to-one correlation in these studies which leaves open the issue of a biological component as well as the 'strength' of early childhood experiences dictating future behavior.

     Daryl Bem's "Exotic Becomes Erotic" Theory.[7] (Slides 11 and 12; ) Bem has proposed that individuals can become erotically attracted to classes of individuals from whom they felt different during childhood. This is an intriguing theory for the origin of heterosexuality. According to this theory, society enforces a male-female dichotomy based on labor and power relationships, exaggeration of sex differences, and a general polarization of the genders. Being raised in our own gender groups makes the other group "different," "attractive," or "exotic" and therefore highly desirable. Thus, in terms of homosexuality, children who grow up feeling different from their same-sex peers may later develop same sex attraction (which, incidentally, may be preceded by a lack of interest in gender-typical toys and activities - See Gender Nonconformity, above). Bem bases his theory on surveys of homosexuals in the Bay Area of California in which about 70% of both men and women homosexuals felt "sexually different" from their same sex peers during childhood (and thus is gender based).

     Homosexual parents are equivalent to heterosexual parents. A recent study by the American Psychological Association found that same-sex couples were "remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children was unrelated to parental sexual orientation." This suggests that the sexual preference of children is likely to be unrelated to parental sexual orientation. If correct, these data would indicate that sexuality is more a condition of genetic predisposition than environemtnal or parental influence.

     Some Conclusions. The data about psychological causes of homosexual behavior do not point to a single cause. The data are just inconclusive. It seems most likely that there are neonatal antecedents that predispose toward later development of homosexual orientation, provided that appropriate early childhood experiences are present to cultivate a final disposition toward same-sex activity. Because there are so many variables, each one of which will need to be weighted differently for each individual, it may be impossible to identify a single cause of homosexuality any more than it is possible to identify the cause of cancer. There was a time (perhaps 30 years ago) when it was believed that there was a cause of cancer - something we now know unequivocally is dependent on the interaction of several genes with several environmental factors that are unique for each cancer studied. (Slides 13 and 14; )

     In a study of female sexuality, Carla Golden summarized the variables she identified that contributed to female sexual orientation. They were: sexual fantasies, sexual attractions, falling in love, emotional and affectional preferences, actual sexual experiences, the quality of the sexual experience, and most important, self-identification.[8] These variables probably transcend gender and can be applied to male sexual preferences.

Back to Top

Psychological Origins of Homophobia

    One of the issues that has been raised in class is the origin of the negative feelings toward homosexuals in church. A related issue deals with whether it is proper for the church to ordain homosexual people. We discussed some of these issues in Class 2 when we surveyed the responses of different denominations to the issue of sexuality. At this writing (July 16, 2003), the Episcopal Church is preparing to meet in Minneapolis where two of the most newsworthy issues will be the consecration of an openly gay Bishop and the blessing of same-sex relationships.

     Why does the issue of homosexuality cause such a severe reaction? The research of Mary Kite is informative in this regard.[9] Kite believes that heterosexual anti-homosexual behavior is part of a generalized belief system which itself is related to heterosexual perceptions of homosexual stereotypes.

     Attitudes Toward Homosexuals. (Slide 15; ) Studies have shown that heterosexuals do indeed behave differently toward people they believe are homosexual. They tend to speak more rapidly, label gay men as less masculine and less preferred than heterosexual peers, and are likely to remember less about homosexual people they meet than heterosexual ones. College students tend to believe that homosexual couples have less satisfying sex lives than heterosexuals. Psychologists believe that these attitudes are the result of stereotyping and prejudice. See also the section below on Spirituality and Homosexuality. (Slide 16; )

     Stereotyping and Prejudice. There are three ideas about the origin of stereotyping: the sociocultural perspective, the motivational perspective, and the cognitive perspective. The latter is the now dominant theory in the origins of prejudice. (Slide 17; )

• The Sociocultural Perspective. (Slide 18; ) This theory assumes that stereotypes are provided by the culture and form patterns of behavior that are associated across the culture and span time. The idea here is that there is specific societal consensus about the characteristics of given groups or their roles within that society, and that these are incorporated by the individuals in the society. There is evidence that this model has merit in terms of homosexual prejudices, in that studies have shown that individuals who have never known a homosexual often have negative attitudes toward homosexuality. One might legitimately ask how one could inculcate anti-homosexual attitudes without knowing a homosexual. It is believed that the stereotype of the homosexual as someone to be shunned, or feared, or rejected, is promulgated by the media. Kite believes that because homosexual persons have been portrayed poorly by mass media (TV, movies, etc.), serves to perpetuate negative attitudes toward homosexuals.[10]
• The Motivational Perspective. (Slide 19; ) This theory assumes that a person will adopt a prejudicial attitude because it serves to strengthen one's personal identity. There is much psychological evidence to support this as an origin of prejudice. The young soldier who bludgeoned his comrade in the movie Soldier's Girl (based on a true story) is probably an example of this type of behavior. If homosexuals are viewed by the society at large as an "outgroup," then homosexuals make an easy target for those who want to enhance their sense of self-worth by derogating homosexuals.
• The Cognitive Perspective. (Slides 20 and 21; ) This perspective assumes that stereotypes are useful categorizing tools for people who live in a busy world. In this sense, stereotyping is not a 'bad' thing; rather it is a useful way of comprehending and organizing information. The cognitive perspective sees prejudice as an unfortunate consequence of this king of cognitive learning behavior. Curiously, psychologists have learned that members of a stereotyped group in a given society oftentimes react in surprisingly stable and automatic ways. However, psychologists have also learned that there are people in society that can are inherently tolerant (or non-prejudiced) and intolerant (or prejudiced). Tolerant and intolerant individuals in a society employ different means to make decisions or to make detailed impressions of stereotyped individuals in an outgroup. Instead of relying on the stereotyped image, a tolerant person will temper their stereotypic reaction and treat the member of the outgroup as an individual rather than merely a member of the outgroup (or minority).    

Back to Top

Prejudicial Behavior

     While it might appear that behavior might be predicted from personal attitudes plus the stereotyped images individuals have absorbed from society, psychologists have not found that connection easy to make. (Slide 22; ) For example, one 1992 study showed that both tolerant and intolerant people were willing to meet a person identified to them as homosexual.[11] this same study showed that 26% of people were unwilling to meet someone who was identified to them as a homosexual, whereas only 8% of people were unwilling to meet someone of unknown sexual orientation.[12] The results suggest prejudice was a factor in the decision of some (26% of the sample) to meet a stranger, and not just a fear of meeting someone new. (Slides 23 and 24; ) It appears that the psychological literature supports the notion that heterosexual attitudes toward homosexuals are generally negative. However, individual differences are evident, and tolerant individuals can and do treat homosexuals and heterosexuals similarly.

    The ATLG and Religious Influences on Homophobia. In an effort to gain a more objective measure of prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals, Herek developed the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale during the 1970s and 1980s.[13] The ATLG is a 20 question questionnaire (View the ATLG), and there is also a short form (ATLG-S) for use in surveying larger groups. Between 1988 and 1991, Herek administered the ATLG or the ATLG-S to hundreds of people in different communities and by phone interviews. He has found that

heterosexuals are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward lesbians and gay men to the extent that they accept non-traditional roles for men and women, are not religious or belong to a liberal religious denomination (italics mine), describe themselves as politically moderate or liberal, and have had positive interpersonal experiences with gay men or lesbians. In contrast, greater hostility is predicted by acceptance of traditional gender roles, high religiosity or membership in a conservative or fundamentalist denomination (italics mine), political conservatism, and lack of interpersonal contact.[14]

(Slide 25; ) Herek has looked specifically at religious influences on the attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuals. He notes that in the 1950s and 1960s researchers were puzzled by the fact that antiblack racism positively correlated with people's religious commitments. This was explained, and has relevance to our discussion of homosexual prejudice, by how people look at social convention. Some people have a religious orientation that Herek calls extrinsic. It is a self-serving, instrumental approach that conforms to social conventions. I liken this to the attitude of the Pharisees. (Slide 26; ) Other people have an intrinsic religious orientation that provides them with a framework for looking at life that is endowed with meaning. Extrinsic orientation is associated with prejudice, whereas intrinsics tend to use their religious training to inform their interactions with other people; they tend to love their neighbor. One might imagine that extrinsics would be more likely to be anti-homosexual. This was not the case.

     Herek compared white heterosexuals' attitudes toward homosexuals with their racial attitudes. He found that an intrinsic orientation was not associated with racial prejudice. However, both extrinsics and intrinsics religious orientations were associated with negative attitudes toward homosexuals. This was due to religious orientation, since religious intrinsics were more likely to express anti-homosexual attitudes than non-religious respondents. Curiously, racial attitudes were predicted by religious orientation, but anti-homosexual attitudes were predicted by religious fundamentalism.[15] Herek also found that people who were generally more insecure about gender or sexuality issues and who had negative attitudes toward homosexuals tended to attend religious services at least monthly, to belong to a conservative denomination, and to endorse an orthodox religious ideology.

     Herek also found that people who had had interpersonal contact with homosexuals were less likely to exhibit anti-homosexual attitudes than people who did not have such contact. This was not due, however, due to accidental contact with homosexuals. The heterosexuals that were most likely to have contact with gay men and lesbians were highly educated, politically liberal, young, and female. Such heterosexuals were less likely to hold stereotypical attitudes about homosexuals.

     In a study published in 1991, Herek found that most Americans disapprove of homosexuality on moral grounds or consider it to be wrong, they also feel that homosexuals should have equal employment opportunities and free speech rights.[16]

     Herek's research points to how we might conceptualize anti-homosexual attitudes at an individual level. On one level, the prejudice can be seen as an individual struggle as one confronts one's own sexuality. It is a conflicted psychological place where change of attitude can only take place within the self. Another view is that prejudice is a form of rejection of an outgroup (like racism or anti-Semitism). Here the conflict is between groups - an "us" verses "them" paradigm. Change in this view will require challenging a persons conceptions of stereotypes. The latter view, often called the minority-group focus currently predominates in psychological research.

Back to Top

Spirituality and Homosexuality

     One of the stereotypes that may have fueled prejudice against male homosexuals is the notion that gays are genital machines interested only in personal sexual gratification. (Slide 27; ) J. Michael Clark described how, before the AIDS empidemic, the gay culture had institutionalized impersonal sex in the construction of bath houses, gay bars, and other similar institutions. Instead of sex being seen as an intimate, sacred act, Clark describes how

institutionalized patterns of behavior prevented ... any possibility of personal intimacy ... Darkened, music-filled bathhouses and orgy rooms likewise presented only vague bodily forms in fog and steam, precluding intimate communication. Even the seemingly more personal one night stands ... were generally begun under the veil of dim lights, loud music, and alcoholic haze, consummated often enough without so much as an exchange of names, and, after orgasm, cleaned up, and cleaned out of one's life as quickly as possible, lest the post-coital awkwardness give way to any undesired intimacy.[17]

         Clark suggests that the issues of intimacy and mutual relationship in sexual behavior for gays need to be re-imaged in terms of spiritual wholeness, for it is through a redefinition of wholeness that psychological and sociological wholeness may be achieved (Slide 28; ) Quoting from Judith Plaskow, Clark describes the current goal of liberation of gay people as

The sharing of sexuality ... by mutual consent, a consent that is not a blanket permission, but that is continually reviewed in the actual rhythms of particular relationships ... Sexuality is fundamentally about moving out beyond ourselves. The connecting, communicative neature of sexuality isnot something we can experience or look for only in sexual encounters narrowly defined (as genital and/or anonymous), but in all relationships in our lives.[18]

     Clark emphasizes that gay sexuality needs to be reconceptualized as a form of erotic energy that has healing properties, enables gays to be both vulnerable and playful, and that seeks intimate friendship in mutual relation. (Slide 29; ) The fundamental need for connectedness between people is what should undergird an ethic of sexuality in which mutuality and justice in relationship remain paramount. It would seem that if the data of Herek are right, then seeking a spiritual and sacramental approach to sexuality would go a long way toward reducing homosexual prejudice within the society at large.

Back to Top

Some Conclusions and Thoughts for Discussion (Slide 30;)

     Gender non-conformity in childhood seem to relate to adult expressions of homosexuality, and there is evidence that favors both environmental and psychological factors (in addition to the biological factors we discussed last week). How would you weight the biological and psychological factors? How many different theories have you heard about the origin of homosexuality?

     The concern of the church does not seem to be as much with homosexuality per se, but what a given homosexual does with his or her experiences of same-sex attraction. How do you view this? Has what you have heard or experienced directly from gay culture influenced your views of gays as a whole? What about lesbian culture?

     While we talk about the psychological basis of homosexuality, we hear little about the psychology of the heterosexual attitude toward homosexuality. Did what was presented here help you? What more might you need/want to know?

Back to Top

COMMENTS? E-MAIL ME

Next Class (July 27): Open Discussion.

     There will be no specific presentation next Sunday. (Slide 31; ) Instead, a list of suggested questions will be provided to give us the opportunity to "lay our cards on the table," talk freely and openly about the issues and problems raised thus far, and learn from each other. Please review our class covenant regarding the discussion of highly personal issues.

Back to Top

Biology & Spirituality of Human Sexuality Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Sunday School Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Home Page

[1] Dallas, Joe. "Another Option: Christianity and Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality" In Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Siker, Jeffrey S. (Ed.). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. 1994), 137-144.

[2] Greene, Beverly, and Gregory M. Herek (Eds.). Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1994), 6

[3] Jones, Stanton L. and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 33.

[4] See the discussion in Jones and Yarhouse, 31-46.

[5] Jones and Yarhouse, 101.

[6] Gonsiorek, J and J. Weinrich. "The Definition and Scope of Sexual Orientation." Gonsiorek, J and J. Weinrich, (Eds). Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991), 1-12, as cited in Greene, Beverly. "Lesbian and Gay Sexual Orientations: Implications for Clinical Training, Practice, and Research." In Greene, Beverly, and Gregory M. Herek (Eds.). Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1994), 3.

[7] Bem, Daryl J. Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation.Psychol Rev 103:320-335, 1996, as discussed in Jones and Yarhouse, 59-60.

[8] Kite, Mary E. "When Perceptions Meet Reality: Individual Differences in Reactions to Lesbians and Gay Men," In Greene, Beverly, and Gregory M. Herek (Eds.). Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1994), 25-53.

[9] Golden, Carla. "Our Politics and Choices: The Feminist Movement and Sexual Orientation," In Greene, Beverly, and Gregory M. Herek (Eds.). Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1994), 63.

[10] Kite, 30.

[11] Kite, 46.

[12] Kite, 46.

[13] Herek, Gregory M. "Assessing Heterosexual's Altitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men: A Review of Empirical Research With the ATLG Scale," In Greene, Beverly, and Gregory M. Herek (Eds.). Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1994), 206-228.

[14] Herek, 217.

[15] Herek, 218.

[16] Herek, 223-225.

[17] Clark, J. Michael. "Men's Studies, Feminist Theology, and Gay Male Sexuality," In Nelson, James B. and Sandra P. Longfellow. Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection. (Lousiville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 217.

[18] Plaskow, J as quoted in Clark, 219.

Visits Since 18 July, 2003:

This publication, i.e. this page and the preceding document that has a link to this page, are copyrighted. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior permission of the publisher.