A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior

The classical view of human sexuality holds that man is invested with a particular sex within which he, as an individual, develops. Recent attempts to alter this conception and to explain psychosexual maturation as developing from a neutral rather than a sexual base are here reviewed and criticized. Essentially, a psychosexual neutrality-at-birth theory holds that male and female patterns of sexual orientation and behavior are attributable exclusively to learning or imprinting phenomena. This theory is derived from clinical observations of individuals manifesting morphological sexual incongruities (hermaphrodites, pseudohermaphrodites, etc.). This article defends the view of inherent somatic sexuality organizing man's psychosexual development by: (a) reviewing man's place on the evolutionary continuum, and the broad base of sexual behavior within this discussion must be considered; (b) presenting normative, clinical and anthropological evidence inferring a particular sexual predilection birth; (c) showing genetic, hormonal, and neural indications for sexual predisposition; (d) refuting the extend of imprinting involved in humans; and (e) showing the futility of separating "nurture" from "nature" in reference to the role of learning and acquisition of a gender role.