The question of nature versus nurture or, as it is sometimes more ponderously phrased, biological versus social determinism. Although many of the arguments explored are posed in this either/or fashion, some scientists and social theorists no longer believe in the scientific validity of this framework.
What if sexuality is linked to the biological individual makeup? Could it be blueprinted and shift from one pole to another as life goes on? This questioning means putting two theoretical lines of the origin of sexuality in check. The essentialism as the nineteenth century predominant school of thought argued that the human sexual behavior stems from ingrain biological blueprint. Therein sexual practice stems from the individual's natural urges. Remarked as force, sexuality is regarded as positive ( and should be let out ) or negative ( ought to be subdued socially). For the pundits of essentialism, the heterosexual behavior is as natural as normal. on the other hand, the homosexual behavior is a result of a biological flaw. This argumentation brought about protective benefits for the homosexuals. once inherit, one is not guilty of being born this or that way, being liable to cure. The paradigm between homosexuality and a third - sex gave rise to the wake of gay-rights movement. In addition, the constructivist theory regards sexual identity as a human trait acquired culturally and socially.
Notions of sexuality alters with time ( historically ) and in space ( from society to society ). A wing of theorists employed the constructivism radically in that claiming sexual drive as a socially derived byproduct. Another wing viewed its core shaped by social factors. As a result of socialization, the individual not only would have his/hers sexuality shaped by social factors, but also freedom to choose a trend of sexual demeanor. This framework would be beyond any given invariable condition, so then, benefiting the homosexuals. It should be linked to sexual demeanors driven by social roles and scenarios- specific demeanors in each social sphere. Such ideas amalgamated on the grounds of communal unity creation, thus claiming the exact social sphere of homosexuals in society. Whenever sexuality referring, the actual panorama reveals both perspectives triggered concomitantly. The theory of a third - sex is no longer en vogue. Although, the essentialist standpoint is yet put in place by gay activists as political strategy in order to defend their very existence, almost as ethnicity in communal fabrics. Both perspectives permeate vows of these movements as back up support. Such perspectives are constantly boasted by peers. We should single out essentialist and constructivist perspectives from essentialist and constructivist theories. Since researchers work from theories and individuals from perspectives.
By Jonatas Dornelles