Introduction
The subject of what constitutes natural sexual behavior is hotly contested in the West. The ideas of social constructivism have become increasingly popular to the point that everything is starting to be viewed through the prism of how people and cultures define it. At the same time, the biological roots of sexuality that predate society are impossible to deny. To find explanations for how human sexuality developed and evolved, many have turned to history, biology, and the observation of other species, both social and solitary.
Findings from such observations have clarified certain matters and helped form theories on how human behavior, physiology, and society interact with one another. This paper claims that while the origins of sexual behavior in humans are biological, they are heavily informed by social constructs that individuals and societies surround themselves with.
Ultimate and Proximate Explanations of Human Sexual Behavior
The ultimate explanation of human sexual behavior is as follows: It is a process of selection and copulation with a mate to produce healthy offspring and continuation of humanity as a species (Byrne & Kelley, 2022). As mentioned, this pattern of behavior predates society and even humanity itself, being rather uniform in its origin. The proximate explanation of sexuality, however, is considered in terms of how sexuality works. That particular part has been fluid and changed many times, depending on various factors, many of which have been determined by humans themselves, both individually and as part of the greater whole (Byrne & Kelley, 2022).
It is easy to see how the ultimate explanation has its roots in the biological part of sexuality, whereas social constructs play a bigger role in how it works. While the biological mechanisms of reproduction remain, more or less, the same, the choice of partners, desired characteristics, and other considerations differ greatly from the initial biological template. These themes will be discussed further in the paper.
Sexual Desire from a Biological Standpoint
Sexual desire is explained from a biological standpoint as an intrinsic desire in individuals to mate with the fittest and most healthy partner available, to produce offspring to ensure the survival of the human race. DuVal et al. (2023) state that inferred attractiveness is a generalized mechanism that was developed before and without the implicit or explicit influence of societal notions or behaviors. Physical strength, the capacity for survival, and associated psychological characteristics are described as some of the naturally desirable characteristics in a male specimen.
Likewise, physical fitness, hip width, and other biologically informed qualities are seen as desirable in women, from an evolutionary standpoint (DuVal et al., 2023). This approach is based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which states that as species evolve, they subconsciously select various traits that would contribute to the survival of the species (Rosenthal & Ryan, 2022). This view has been popular in the nascent field of gender studies throughout at least the first half of the 20th century.
This approach, however, has since been heavily criticized by the proponents of social constructivism in sex. Davis and Arnocky (2022) highlight the fact that it is not fully understood where the “initial patterns” for mate choice come from in biology. Likewise, when it comes to humans, it is impossible to draw the line between when the biological part of sexual behavior ends and socially constructed behavior begins (Davis and Arnocky, 2022). The common idea that women are naturally attracted to strong and healthy males, for example, is contested on the grounds of what is considered to be “strong” and “healthy” (Bolin et al., 2021).
Likewise, the biological view of sexual behavior does not offer a clear explanation as to the existence of homosexual relationships in the wild, nor how it transitions to human activities. Nevertheless, the common consensus is that biological sexuality as a means of reproduction predates that of social constructivism (Garland et al., 2022). Its origins can be traced throughout the evolutionary chain to the point when the organisms with which humans share a common origin are incapable of sentient thought.
Social Constructivism and Human Sexual Behavior
Social constructivist views on human sexual behavior have much basis in how society and evolving humanity views sex as well as attraction. It is no surprise that, throughout human history, what was considered to be attractive has changed numerous times. For example, the common beauty standard for a woman during the medieval ages, as well as the Renaissance, was that of a strong physique as well as a larger and wider bone structure (Unger, 2020). Some of the motivations for these traits to be desired were to ensure the survival of the mother during childbirth.
It was believed that women of such complexity would have better chances of doing so. In contrast, modern standards for beauty and sexuality in women prefer thinner and smaller women – a direct contrast to what has been considered more sexually attractive in the past (Ponizovskiy et al., 2019). The changes can be attributed to societal influences on behavior – modern medicine has significantly reduced the mortality rate among mothers. At the same time, the pressure of producing offspring as a means of survival has also been reduced.
Social constructivism also informs what is considered acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior. The differences have been palpable when comparing marriage ages – for women in Ancient China, it was around 14 years of age, as mentioned in writings by Confucius (Bolin et al., 2021). Nowadays, such practices would have been considered criminal in most countries of the world. The difference stems mainly from cultural influences on sexuality – it is viewed that individuals do not achieve full psychological maturity until reaching the age of 18, meaning that all and any sexual intercourse before that is revoltingly immoral (Cheng & Kolk, 2021).
Likewise, social constructivism explains the development of homosexual behaviors in humans as well as other species. Notably, these behaviors are observed in social species in general, ranging from sheep to bottlenose dolphins (Byrne & Kelley, 2022). Likewise, the acceptance rate of these behaviors varied based on social and religious sensibilities, to the point where the proclivity for them was heavily influenced by how societies viewed the practice.
Nevertheless, the social constructivist approach to sexuality in humans is not without criticism. By definition, it cannot be the sole factor to inform or generate sexual behavior. It does not offer an alternative reasoning for this behavior beyond the purposes of reproduction (Soh, 2021). Had it been so, then the pattern could have been observed in all creatures, no matter how complex or how simple. In addition, social construction does not explain biological predisposition towards homosexuality.
In rams, for example, there are clear biological alterations to the size of their brain organs, specifically the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus, which may influence behavior (Byrne & Kelley, 2022). While the subject is contested between physiological, neurological, and socially-constructivist researchers, the most likely outcome is that homosexuality has some basis in both social and biological structures. Therefore, it cannot serve as a full explanation for human sexuality either.
Synthesis
Based on the critical assessment of the literature provided above, several conclusions can be made about human sexuality and, by extension, sexuality in general. It is clear that sexuality in humans, like in all other species, was developed as a naturally occurring mechanism of selection of the most capable partners to facilitate the existence of the species (Garland et al., 2022). The origins of such behavior are still unclear, but they have likely formed through randomization, with the most survivable choices forming through natural selection.
At the same time, social constructs have been influencing human sexuality ever since humans became capable of creating societies (Byrne & Kelley, 2022). Dimensions that did not exist in nature, such as economics, politics, religion, and other social factors, have become influential in shaping sexual preferences and behavior (Bolin et al., 2021). Throughout history, there has been a clear evolution in human sexuality. The assumed natural norms of partner preference have been deviated from numerous times, to better reflect survival not in nature, but in different societies.
Conclusion
Therefore, claiming that human sexuality is fully explained by either biological or social constructivist theory is wrong, since there is clearly a synthesis between both. While the social nature of sexual behavior can, to a degree, override the natural preconceptions towards sex, sexual desire, partner preference, and other related matters, it cannot fully erase them for the entire species (DuVal et al., 2023).
Individuals may have specific desires that may fluctuate from one pole of contention towards the other, but, as a whole, sex will continue to carry out its role of ensuring the survival of the human race (Bolin et al., 2021). In the future, it is possible that social factors would serve as an even more dominant force, should scientific discoveries allow humanity to replicate without the explicit participation of one or both parents, thus further weakening the biological necessity to procreate.
References
Bolin, A., Whelehan, P., Vernon, M., & Antoine, K. (2021). Human sexuality: Biological, psychological, and cultural perspectives. Routledge.
Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (Eds.). (2022). Alternative approaches to the study of sexual behavior. Psychology Press.
Cheng, Y. H. A., & Kolk, M. (2021). An East–West dichotomy? Shifting marriage age patterns in Taiwan and Sweden over two centuries. The History of the Family, 26(3), 434-465.
Davis, A. C., & Arnocky, S. (2022). Darwin versus Wallace: esthetic evolution and preferential mate choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 862385.
DuVal, E. H., Fitzpatrick, C. L., Hobson, E. A., & Servedio, M. R. (2023). Inferred Attractiveness: a generalized mechanism for sexual selection that can maintain variation in traits and preferences over time. Plos Biology, 21(10), e3002269.
Garland Jr, T., Downs, C. J., & Ives, A. R. (2022). Trade-offs (and constraints) in organismal biology. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 95(1), 82-112.
Ponizovskiy, V., Grigoryan, L., Kühnen, U., & Boehnke, K. (2019). Social construction of the value–behavior relation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 934.
Rosenthal, G. G., & Ryan, M. J. (2022). Sexual selection and the ascent of women: Mate choice research since Darwin. Science, 375(6578), eabi6308.
Soh, D. (2021). The end of gender: Debunking the myths about sex and identity in our society. Simon and Schuster.
Unger, R. (2020). Representations: Social constructions of gender. Routledge.