Sexual Orientation Development:
Link Between Childhood Gential Fixation & Homosexuality


Having shown why and possibly how human beings lost their sexual instinct, what needs explaining is why there exists the greatest potentiality for homosexual orientation development. At first hand, a logical assumption would be that there should be an equal probability for the development of all sexual orientation types. However, there is a universal set of behaviors that infants innately display, and which, under conditions where heterosexuality is not strongly promoted and homosexuality is not discouraged, strongly favors a homosexual orientation development over a heterosexual one or a bisexual one.


As adults, we all relate to the world based on a knowledge of who we are as individuals. There is a recognition of the self as an entity defined by our own individual sensations, thoughts, life experiences, and appearance. But we are not born with a knowledge of who we are, or what we are, because at birth we have no experience with being ourselves. The recognition of self is very important for survival because it allows the brain to become knowledgeable about the physical boundaries of the body that houses it and which it controls, and which it must protect and maintain in order to ensure its own survival. This process of recognition necessarily involves a child exploring every facet of its own body very early on in life, and becoming imprinted on all elements that are characteristic of itself. The brain must logically associate positively to all such elements, because any negative association would intuitively lead to a decreased motivation of the brain to take care of the body. At least at birth, a healthy brain – prior to having any negative psychological experiences – has the will to survive and therefore will love everything about its own body. Another attribute of the brain that is important to our discussion is that the brain is highly motivated by pleasurable sensations and will tend to repetitively engage in any behavior producing them. The inevitability of a child exploring its own body, coupled with this tendency for self-gratification, lead to a universal set of behaviors that have the potential to determine a child’s sexuality5.


The brain becomes most strongly imprinted to the odors that characteristically define our individuality. Irrespective of the views each of us adults may have regarding the appeal of our own bodily odors, babies necessarily start out in life by loving all the odors associated with their own bodies. In the absence of parental intervention and discouragement, infants become drawn to the odors of their feces, their gaseous expellations, to decaying dead skin that accumulates in areas like the navel, between the toes, and under the toe nails, but most strongly to the intrinsically pleasurable smell of smegma, a thick cheese-like sebaceous secretion that collects beneath the foreskin in males, and around the clitoris in females. A child that is unrestricted by parental care from doing so will freely and repetitively probe such areas with its fingers, particularly the genital area, so that it can then smell its fingers and receive a pleasurable smell sensation. In a very real sense, if unchecked such behavior can become highly addictive because it is so highly pleasurable. Of all the parts exuding such ‘addictive’ odors, the genital becomes the area of greatest fixation because it exudes the strongest odor, and because, being the most highly innervated of all such areas, it therefore also has the greatest capacity to result in pleasurable physical sensations arising from tactile stimulation. The sensitive genital area accordingly becomes the primary area that is targeted by a child in its attempts to receive pleasure.





5 Sigmund Freud believed that there are five psychosexual stages of development, the first three of which occur in infancy. The three stages during infancy – in chronology – are the oral, anal, and phallic stage, each one denoting the area of temporary sexual fixation during normal psychosexual development as an infant matures. In Freud’s view the oral, anal, and phallic stages roughly cover, respectively, the first year of life, the second year, and the third through fifth years (Maddi, Salvatore R., Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis. Fourth Edition, Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1980, p. 295). In his model, conflict – arising from overindulgence or underindulgence at a particular stage – leads to arrested development and a lingering effect of that stage on later behavior, often leading to perversions and personality disorders. The “arrested development” that Freud sees as a trigger for perversions and personality disorders in adulthood would be most prevalent if not for societal pressures to “grow past” each stage. Hence, some of these “perversions” may in some sense be the most normal uninfluenced expressions of human behavior and personality. Although True Nature theory incorporates these same three erogenous zones into the ensuing model of sexual orientation development, unlike Freud, it begins with the view that the brain is sexually a tabula rasa whose sexual orientation vector awaits only experience for its directionality. Only from this vantage point can one begin to see the full potential psychosexual implications of early childhood exploratory sexual behaviors, and the necessity for society to endorse the pervasive cluster of heterosexually conditioning elements that it does.



—   Page 2   —


It is this most natural infatuation of children with their own genital that makes the development of a homosexual orientation much more likely than either a heterosexual one or a bisexual one. To understand why, we must first remember that because we are not born with a sexual instinct we have no initial sexual inclination, neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, nor bisexual, and it is only through life experiences that one’s individual sexuality becomes determined. Because children can derive such intense pleasure from their genital, they develop an intimate love for it and it becomes highly cherished and important in their lives. They love everything about it – the extremely pleasurable sensitivity of their genital to touch, the appealing and rather seductive smell of its smegma, the mechanics and design of their organ, and even its characteristic appearance. The infatuation of a child with its own genital has no effect on the development of sexual orientation until a child learns the concept of gender. If a child’s personal environment is sufficiently free of societal repression against homosexuality and also sufficiently lacking in strong heterosexual influences, as soon as it becomes aware of gender differences there will exist the very strong potential for it to view individuals of its own perceived gender as possessing genitals of exactly the same design and presumably the same pleasurable odor as its own, different from the genitals of the opposite sex. Its insatiable love for its own genital would logically cause a child under these circumstances to be more sexually drawn to members of its own sex, with whom it would form this natural association, than to the opposite sex, with whom it could not similarly associate. Note that nowhere in these normal childhood behaviors do we see a reason why children would, in the absence of societal influences, sexually prefer individuals of the opposite sex. A child has no experience with genitals of the opposite sex, so why would it prefer them to genitals of its own kind, especially when one considers that at least at a young age there is a tendency to stay with the familiar and shy away from the uncertain and unknown? It we realize that human relationships are largely based on commonalities between individuals – that we like most to be with people who have the most in common with ourselves (perhaps hobbies, cultural backgrounds, political affiliations, occupations, favorite sports team, etc.) – we would have to conclude that to a significant extent, even nonsexual friendships would be more likely to occur between same-sex individuals because of societally generated commonalities based on gender. This has the potential to further increase the bias toward same-sex associations that are triggered from the pleasurable olfactory and tactile sensations a child derives from its genital.


In response to a significant percentage of homosexuals who may be unable to relate to the proposed developmental pathway and who believe that their homosexuality is genetic, it might be suggested that in some cases sexual imprinting occurs sufficiently early in childhood, before individuals possess the adequate language development and mental capacity required to permit such same-sex associations becoming part of recorded and recollectable experience, thereby effectively obscuring the experience-based underpinnings of their sexual orientation. When such individuals reach an age where they are old enough to interpret their feelings and retain memories, they thereafter understandably carry with them the erroneous belief that their homosexuality has been present since birth and therefore has a genetic basis. In other cases, the proposed developmental pathway is disrupted in stride early in childhood as individuals become acutely aware of the heterosexual imperative endorsed by society, and in response, consciously or subconsciously abandon their homosexual inclination, only to have it surface relatively late in life for reasons they are then often not able to explain. Evidently, whether such associations materialize at all, when they surface, and under what conditions, must be a function of individual experience. Clearly, the same is true for heterosexual individuals; they too were often too young to remember how and why through experience they developed a heterosexual orientation, and thus view their heterosexuality as something (genetically) inherent to their being.


Both at a conscious and subconscious level, there may be an additional reason why a child’s infatuation with its own genital would eventually translate to a sexual desire for others of the same sex. It is based on the observation that infants and young children tend to want to put anything in their mouths that they either like the smell of, like the feel of, find interesting, are fascinated with, or are generally attached to. It is only through experience and being corrected that it learns what can be consumed and what cannot, but in the process of learning this it will try to put its mouth to just about anything that it finds interesting. Because it intensely loves its own genital so much, in a completely free environment devoid on any societal restrictions a child would most naturally develop a strong desire to want to put its genital in its mouth and taste it, despite the obvious anatomical constraints. Each of the two main types of sensory pleasure a child derives from its genital, namely smell and touch, can independently fuel such a desire, although it may be the case that the sense of smell is dominant in this respect, given the strong connection between the senses of smell and taste. Of course, only contortionists of the highest caliber would be able to put their mouth to their own genital. It would become apparent to a child (in most cases at a subconscious level) that the dilemma on not being able to taste its own genital would most naturally be compensated for by tasting the genital of another individual of its own sex.





—   Page 3   —


Irrespective of whether a desire to want to taste their own genital is in reality universal in infants and young children, I am suggesting that it clearly would be rather universal in the absence of any societal interference. What we should ask ourselves is whether the majority of young children would put their own genital to their mouth if they could physically manage to? My contention is that if they were not restricted from doing so and were not taught that it was dirty, this ‘appetitive’ desire would most certainly be universal. Although one might expect such desires would be equal in both sexes, one would intuitively suspect that actual physical attempts to contort the body in order to bring the genital within reach of the mouth would be much more common in boys than girls, only because the anatomy of males is more suggestible to such endeavors, making such attempts tantalizingly possible, though not realistically attainable in the vast majority of cases. If as adults we cannot all relate to such childhood desires and experiences, it is because our early environment greatly influenced our emerging sexual behavior, and in many cases it was a restrictive one. The fact that we are taught by our parents that the smells produced by our bodies are dirty must deter a significant percentage of young children from being drawn to smelling, playing with, or wanting to taste their genital. Similarly, a very religious upbringing can create feelings of guilt about deriving enjoyment from our bodies, or at the very least, it will tend to encourage self-restraint with respect to sexual enjoyment. However, I believe it can be safely stated that the majority of people do remember going through at least some period of their early childhood where they were gripped by a keen fascination and preoccupation with their genital owing to the olfactory and tactile pleasures derived from it. Such strong genital fixation however, is likely to be somewhat abated as a child matures into adolescence and becomes aware that society equates such behavior with perversion. In most cases such private childhood indiscretions have remained too personal and embarrassing to disclose to anyone. And so, even though each of us as adults knows from personal experience that it must be normal and rather universal for a child to be sexually curious, exploratory, and active with its own body it is generally never parentally acknowledged, discussed, or permitted.


One can easily see how, in the absence of an instinctive heterosexual sex drive such strong same-sex associations early in childhood will lead to a homosexual orientation development, if there are no strong environmental factors discouraging it. Such strong environmental factors do exist however, and are most often successful in preventing this natural developmental pathway in favor of a heterosexual one. All societies discourage homosexuality, even if they do not legally forbid it. Children from a very young age are aware of what is acceptable and what is not. They see the world divided into families like their own, each with a mother and father, and they understand that as being the accepted norm. We do not always appreciate how much children take in, nor at how early an age they begin to discern the rules of their environment, especially those concerned with sexuality. Although young children of 4 years of age likely do not fully understand the concept of homosexuality, almost all would know by that age that their parents would be angry and punish them for kissing someone of the same sex, and would be much less angry if they kissed someone of the opposite sex. So how could we in fact ever say that any statistics of human sexual orientation, even if they are accurate, are representative of our true natures? An individual’s sexuality virtually never develops in isolation from societal influences.


One point that needs to be explained is why the incidence of homosexuality in children adopted by homosexual couples is not higher than that of children raised by heterosexual couples. One could reasonably use this statistic to counter the claim that societal conditioning, particularly at the level of the family, has a strong influence in shaping a child’s sexual orientation. On the surface this does indeed appear to be a valid argument. However, one thing to realize is that children raised by homosexual couples are not raised in isolation from society’s influences. They become consciously aware early on that the family structure seen in their home is not paralleled in the environment outside their home. The amount of teasing by other kids about their homosexual parents has never been meaningfully quantified in any study. Irrespective of the extent of such teasing and what its effects may be, children raised by homosexual couples are invariably inundated by pressures from TV, movies, popular culture, and most of all their peers to conform to the heterosexual norm. The homosexual parents themselves have to walk a tightrope. One of the arguments initially used to oppose allowing homosexual couples to adopt was that a homosexual environment would cause the children growing up in it to become homosexually oriented. We have to ask ourselves how the rights of homosexual couples to adopt children would have been affected if statistics showed that children raised by homosexual parents were very much more likely to develop a homosexual orientation compared to children raised by a mother and father. It has to be agreed that this would be very damaging to homosexual couples and perhaps their right to adopt would be revoked. With this in mind, I think it is reasonable to suggest that homosexual couples in general, regardless of how proud they may be of their own sexual orientation, would tend to prefer that their children developed a heterosexual orientation. This would tend to silence critics and reduce any ammunition they could use to object to homosexual adoptions. Also, given the rejection and suffering that most homosexual people endure as a result of living a lifestyle still generally opposed by society, one would think that homosexual couples would want, as much as possible, for their adopted children to develop a heterosexual orientation and thus avoid the stress that accompanies being homosexual. Hence, it would appear reasonable to believe that homosexual parents are even more attentive than heterosexual parents to signs of an emerging homosexual orientation in their children, and that they consciously or subconsciously steer their children, however slightly, toward the development of a heterosexual orientation.




—   Page 4   —


What has been stated thus far is that homosexual tendencies have the potential to arise due to the infatuation a child can develop with its own genital as a result of the two primary types of sensory pleasure derived from it, namely olfactory and tactile. It may logically be conjectured that the strength of a child’s infatuation with its genital is due to the cumulative effects of both these primary types of sensory pleasure it derives, each one contributing to part of the total infatuation. We may therefore reasonably suppose that the elimination or reduction of one of these types of sensory pleasure would result in a lower overall infatuation of a child with its genital, and by extrapolation, also a reduced initial sexual inclination for other individuals of the same sex. This of course would make it easier for society to control and suppress homosexual tendencies, thus allowing it to more successfully ‘program’ heterosexuality through its doctrines pertaining to sexuality. It is only with such a view of human sexual orientation development that I believe a good explanation for the origin or male and female circumcision can be given.


Male circumcision, an operation in which all or part of the foreskin (prepuce) covering the head of the penis is cut away, is practiced by many people scattered across the globe, and is of unknown antiquity and origin. Among the people that practiced it were Polynesians and others of the Pacific Islands, Jews, Muslims, many African cultures including ancient Egypt, and also various cultures in Central and South America. Although it is known that uncircumcised men with poor hygiene are more susceptible to cancer of the penis and urinary tract infections, it seems quite clear that circumcision, which has been widely practiced in Western countries as a hygienic procedure, has not until modern times been regarded as therapeutic surgery. On the subject of circumcision, the Encyclopedia Britannica states (32):

The widespread ethnic distribution of circumcision as a ritual and the quite widely preferred use of a stone knife rather than a metal one suggests a great antiquity of the operation. Whenever the operation is performed as a traditional rite, it is done either before or at puberty and sometimes, as among some Arab peoples, immediately before marriage.

Among the ancient Egyptians, boys were generally circumcised between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Among the Ethiopians, the Jews, the Muslims, and a few other peoples, the operation is performed shortly after birth (among Jews, on the eight day after birth) or perhaps a few days after birth. Among most other peoples who practice it ritually the operation is performed at puberty. At any age the ritual operation is regarded as of the profoundest religious significance. For the Jews it represents the fulfillment of the covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14), the first divine command of the Pentateuch, that every male child shall be circumcised. That Christians were not obliged to be circumcised was first recorded biblically in Acts 15. The operation at puberty represents a beginning of the initiation into manhood and the leaving behind of childhood.

What one should find odd is that circumcision is performed in so many parts of the world, but not for the same reasons. How could so many different peoples, separated by geography and in time, have arbitrarily come up with the same operation, especially when it is not altogether that obvious, and made it part of their customs or religious beliefs? The odds of it happening arbitrarily for differing reasons are too incredible not to be suspicious. What we have to remember is that “it is always possible to unlearn or culturally obscure the facts, something that humans are rather good at. Control over sexual knowledge and erotic imagery for social ends is nothing new” (33). I believe that male circumcision was really an attempt by many different peoples at various times in history to prevent homosexuality. If properly performed – if the entire foreskin is cut away – it can significantly reduce the production of smegma, and it must have been recognized that this had the potential to reduce the tendency for same-sex attractions based on the developmental pathway already described. Although the infatuation of a young boy with his penis resulting from pleasurable tactile stimulation would still be possible, and hence so too would be the tendency for same-sex desires, the tendency and initial desire would be relatively weaker because of the elimination of smegma as one of the two primary contributing factors behind the infatuation.




—   Page 5   —


It is important to remember that circumcision does not guarantee heterosexuality and a lack of it will not necessarily lead to homosexuality. First of all, male circumcision only eliminates or reduces one type of sensory pleasure, namely smell, but does not sufficiently reduce the sensitivity of the glans penis to touch, which also has the potential to cause same-sex desires. Early childhood experiences, particularly sexual ones, can be very important. In cases where there are early childhood sex experiences with other individuals, the resulting sexual orientation development has the potential to be highly variable, depending on the nature of the experience and the child’s psychological state at the time based on prior experience. Accordingly, two identical experiences may affect two individuals differently, even identical twins, because although genetically identical each has a unique store of experiences. Even if circumstances favor a child being able to explore its own body without parental intervention, something as simple as a pleasurable heterosexual experience very early in life could cause a child to develop a heterosexual orientation, or perhaps a bisexual orientation. A heterosexual orientation would also be likely (though not assured) if a strong and positive heterosexual element is present in a child’s personal environment, homosexuality is strongly discouraged, and the individual has a compliant nature.


What is important to remember is that life experiences and our societal conditioning in general can cause us to use the pleasure derived from our genital to sexually desire the opposite sex just as easily as we would naturally develop same-sex desires without the effects of society. On the other hand, a very unpleasant and painful heterosexual experience, perhaps rape, could reinforce the same-sex associations and desires a child may have developed by exploring its own body. What one cannot underestimate in all of this is the role an individual’s personality may have in shaping sexual orientation. As an example, suppose there are two individuals that early on in childhood appear to be developing a homosexual orientation. The first child has a submissive and obedient nature, whereas the second child is more independent minded and has less regard for rules. All things being equal, the obedient and submissive child will generally be more likely than the rebellious and independent child to comply with what it believes would please his/her parents and society. The second child will be less likely, given his/her personality, to disregard homosexual feelings and try to cultivate a heterosexual orientation.


It may be difficult to statistically test the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the tendency for homosexual desires in young children and allows societal influences to more effectively nurture heterosexual tendencies. The central reason may lie in the way in which people in modern societies are so much more connected to a focused, public stream of consciousness than was possible in ancient times, which existed without the pervasive force of television, radio, newspapers, and other conditioning tools. Our densely populated cities makes each of us live under the magnifying glass of others, and this together with the power of modern technology to mold societal views must have a definite effect on the expression of individual sexual behavior. Though we are not always aware of it, mediums such as television, popular fiction, magazines, movies, and even the subtle slant with which news reporting of sexually sensitive issues is handled all serve to act as powerful conditioning agents that have a definite heterosexual bias. Such elements may lower the need and obscure the effectiveness of a conditioning tool such as circumcision today because a growing child is constantly made so aware of what is ‘right’, what is ‘normal’, and what is expected. However, the cultures in ancient times that adopted circumcision would have found the effects of circumcision in reducing homosexual tendencies more tangible because they were largely agrarian societies where people in many cases lived or worked in relative isolation, left to their own devices without the constant onslaught of comparably effective heterosexually conditioning forces our modern technology makes possible.


Moreover, perhaps with the exception of the Jews, who incorporated views against homosexuality into their religious beliefs and were the first people to label it an unnatural and immoral act, people in ancient cultures (unlike people today who live with the knowledge of statistics on sexual orientation) were generally not deterred from homosexuality on the grounds that it was unnatural, or that it was a sin. Efforts to curb homosexuality rested heavily on the creation of civil laws imposed by rulers, which generally tend not to be as effective as the prohibitive views of individuals themselves. In such a social climate the effectiveness of circumcision would have been more evident than it may be today. What about the effects of the greater division of labor based on gender that existed then, or the ever-present standing armies of men that were continually in need to defend empires, both of which would intuitively have presented inherent opportunities for homosexual tendencies to develop and thrive? Such increased potential for homosexual orientation development would have magnified the need and effectiveness of circumcision practices in some cultures.




—   Page 6   —


In any statistical study, the amount of foreskin remaining in circumcised men would have to be quantified somehow because in some cases, sufficient foreskin is left after circumcision to allow a significant amount of smegma to be produced. A follow-up study on the effects of circumcision in 100 male babies in 1962 showed that 50 had almost complete circumcision, 46 were only partly circumcised, and 4 appeared uncircumcised (34)! To draw valid correlations, the level of personal hygiene would also have to quantified, something which would be virtually impossible to do in a meaningful way. Also, the age at which circumcision was performed would also have to be factored for, because all things being equal, the earlier the operation is performed, the greater its effectiveness in reducing homosexual tendencies.


As evidence for the connection that has been drawn between circumcision and a desire to prevent homosexuality, we can look at the history of the Jewish people. The circumcision of Jews is believed to date back to the time of Abraham (c. 2000 BC). Its origin is biblically explained as a sign of a covenant reached between God and Abraham (designated by tradition as “the first Jew”) that the Jews would henceforth worship Yahweh, the one true God. It has occasionally been argued that originally circumcision was used as a mark of the tribe, a sign that would distinguish them from their polytheistic neighbors. However, in a fully clothed society where indecent exposure was a cardinal sin, such a ‘sign’ would have remained largely undetected. Moreover, any identification of nationhood would not have served the bearer well when conquered by foreign peoples, for it would have prevented evasion or denial or race. The greater practicality and effectiveness of the tikka mark of the Hindus or the sprig of herb stuck in a Highlander’s bonnet as recognition symbols in evident (7). The Jews were the first people in the Middle East to begin practicing circumcision and it is possible according to some historians that they may have adopted the practice from the Egyptians, who influenced the early Jews. Some scholars have suggested that the Jews adopted the practice to prevent sand, common to these desert regions, from becoming trapped under the foreskin and causing irritation. Others have rightly countered however, that a better design of loincloth would have seemed an easier solution, and a less painful one.


I believe that the real reason the Jewish people began to practice circumcision was to prevent homosexuality, because in addition to being the first group of people in Asia Minor to begin practicing it, significantly they were concurrently also the first people to religiously condemn homosexual acts. The simultaneous emergence of these two distinctive Jewish traits was not mere coincidence, but instead, intimately related in light of the proposed developmental pathway for homosexuality. The evidence for this concurrence may be inferred in the Biblical accounting of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (c. 1900 BC), two cities that according to the Bible were destroyed by God because of the sinfulness of their inhabitants. The stories are based on a historic event – the destruction of these two cities by an earthquake around 1900 BC that ignited the oil and petroleum deposits in the area, producing what must have been a terrifying spectacle that begged for a plausible explanation. Although the exact nature of the sinfulness is not spelled out in the Bible (and has lent itself to variable scholarly interpretation over the ages), I believe that a reasonable argument can be made to show that the story represents a condemnation of homosexuality. It has been suggested that male temple prostitution had been common in Mesopotamia since at least 2000 BC and since Sodom and Gomorrah were vassal cities, it might be reasonable to suppose they had adopted such rites (8). It would accompany the pagan idol worship with which such practices were usually associated.


Prior to achieving nationhood, the Jews were a handful of scattered tribes that experienced the same concern that has characteristically plagued many small tribes throughout history – assimilation and extinction through depopulation. Accordingly, from the very beginning the Jews were deeply preoccupied with multiplying their numbers. There was a tremendous social pressure on men to marry, build a house, and plant a vineyard (35). In their attempts to increase their population and preserve their culture, some of the founding fathers must have prudently foreseen the benefits of denouncing homosexuality, and they concurrently adopted circumcision as a means of deterring it. In keeping with the cultural agenda the Jews had begun to chart for themselves, it would seem probable then that it was the homosexual practices the Jews wished to discourage that were purposefully linked with the divine punishment that was thought to have destroyed the two cities. Given the prevalence of male temple prostitution in the cultures around them, a rejection of homosexuality also allowed the Jews to differentiate themselves religiously from all others around them at a time when they were still struggling for their independence and religious identity.




—   Page 7   —


I believe that the origin for female circumcision may be similarly explained: it was invented to make female homosexuality less likely. Female circumcision, also known as clitoridectomy, involves removal of the clitoris and all or part of the labia minora. It was performed in much of Africa, ancient Egypt, India, Malaysia, Australia, and among the Skoptsy, a Russian Christian sect (32, volume 2, p. 318). Although clitoridectomy is usually performed as part of female initiation rites, mainly among certain African peoples, some cultures are believed to use it to curb sexual desire by reducing or eliminating the pleasurable sensitivity of the clitoris, thus increasing the changes a girl will remain virgin until marriage. In some cultures, particularly in the Horn of Africa and among some Arabs, the excision of the clitoris is accompanied by induced adhesion of the labia minora, leaving only a small orifice for menstrual flow, a procedure known as infibulation.


Where infibulation accompanies clitoridectomy it does indeed appear at first hand to be an indication that both are alterations of the female genitalia aimed at the same goal – to ensure virginity until marriage. Although it may currently serve this role, female circumcision may not have been originally invented for this purpose. My objection is that implicit in the belief that clitoridectomy lowers sexual desire is the assumption that this sexual desire will most naturally be directed primarily at males, contrary to the hypothesis of this essay. It is clear based on the proposed developmental pathway for sexual orientation that same-sex desires have an inherent tendency to occur unless checked by society. Thus, whereas male circumcision essentially eliminates or drastically reduces the presence of smegma - and thus the important role of olfaction in promoting homosexual tendencies, clitoridectomy analogously reduces the tendency for lesbian orientation development in a young girl by eliminating one of the key conditioning factors that would otherwise promote its development - namely the pleasurable physical sensitivity through tactile stimulation of the clitoris. Possibly, after the Agricultural Revolution, as male-dominated societies evolved in which women played an unprecedented secondary role and became more restrained by societies in their ability to express themselves sexually, female circumcision, especially when it was accompanied by infibulation, began to primarily serve the role of prolonging virginity until marriage.


To this point we have looked at the historical evidence for a homosexual bias. I have proposed a neurological model to explain why the eventual loss of our sexual instinct was assured as out intelligence level increased, and in this section I have given reasons why, in the absence of a sexual instinct a homosexual orientation development is more likely to occur than a heterosexual one or a bisexual one. What is missing in the entire story – the sequence of events as they occurred during our evolution that spell out the transition from ape to human, from an animal with a sexual instinct to one devoid of it. It will only be by looking at the chronology of events that there will be a greater appreciation for the theory of human sexual orientation development that is being proposed. This will be the focus of the next section.





All material copyright 1991-2010 / Christopher Gomes