Sexual Attraction, Evolution, and Biology

Many studies have been conducted regarding psychology, sociology, and homosexuality, yet, unfortunately, clinical studies regarding biology and homosexuality have been scant and less than thorough. According to researchers “reporting on 144 studies of sexual orientation published in the Journal of Homosexuality from 1974 to 1993, found that only 10 percent of these studies used a multidimensional scale to assess homosexuality.” Fausto-Sterling reported in the book, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, that only 13 percent of these studies used a single scale, many used self-identification, sexual preference, and behavior, and some academic publications failed to report the methods used in their studies.

In the article, Studies Put Genetic Twist on Theories about Sex and Love, Sileo writes that some have argued that just as heterosexuality is one biological expression of sexuality, so too may be homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality may not be an isolated evolutionary aberration, but instead, part of a continuum of sexual behavior that is another variant in human sexual behavior.

Social vs. Sexual Attraction

Culture and evolution undoubtedly interact in every human endeavor, sometimes reflecting biological dispositions, and at other times working in the opposite direction. It has also been theorized that natural selection has a social component as well, since women are designed to invest heavily in their offspring, while men are programmed to achieve social status, primarily to attract women.

Darwin’s theories suggest that natural selection, not culture, has shaped how we choose and court a mate. Therefore, over hundreds of thousands of years, evolution has been the driving force, which has molded everything from anatomy to the human psyche. This is to ensure that certain behaviors are favored and certain states of mind promote reproductive success resulting in survival of the species. Therefore, many question whether romance is guided by evolutionary biological and genetic mechanisms. Darwin’s theories appear to remove emotion, love, and caring from the aspect of human relationships and inserts cold, hard scientific necessity in its place. Unfortunately, Darwin did not take into consideration the modern human brain, social pressures mating and relationships when he presented his theories.

This supports notions that culture may intercept genetics regarding our courting habits, as today couples have to deal with outside social pressures that may defy the laws of nature, or Darwin’s survival of the fittest assertion. This is not to say Darwin’s theory is not applicable to primitive man, it only means that Darwin’s theories may be less relevant to the human species today than to other animals in nature who clearly remain reliant on biology and genetics for courting, mating, and reproduction behavior.

Furthermore, women may use short-term sexual partners to evaluate which males will be potential long-term partners. Characteristics of potential short-term partners that women found undesirable were already in another relationship, promiscuous, unfaithful, and sleeps around a lot, which supports the idea that women use short-term sexual relationships along with social factors for scrutiny. This would explain why women are much more selective about marriage partners than men are. According to Shapiro in the article, Not Silly Putty, “the science of human nature can inform us about the trade-offs involved in making decisions about the kind of society in which we want to live, and the extent to which our ideals are suited-or unsuited–to our instincts.”