The article by Bem (1998) is a direct response to criticism by his fellow authors on his previous ‘Exotic-Becomes-Erotic’ (EBE) theory. His critics argue that the theory neglects women’s experiences in addition to the fact that his interpretation of sexual orientation antecedents was greatly misplaced. On the other hand, Bem (1998) argues that his critics overlooked the key variable exemplified in the theory. He asserts that the variable is supposed to be a critical antecedent in interpreting empirical findings that have been put forward by his theory. Indeed, it is imperative to note that proper interpretation of empirical findings is crucial since the will to confirm or refute central contentions that have been highlighted in the theory requires thorough understanding. In addition, he expounds that sexual differences formulated by his critiques are outside the periphery of what is captured in EBE theory.
He begins by asserting that EBE theory embraces the basic assumption by Freud that an individual’s erotic preference is shaped by past experiences. Therefore, EBE theory aimed at accounting for two observations on erotic preferences that other scholars had deliberately ignored. The first observation that was being targeted by the theory was the notion that human beings possess exclusive and enduring erotic preferences which comes into play when selecting sexual partners. The second observation that EBE theory captured is that most men and women within the basic human culture possess exclusive-erotic preferences towards opposite-sex partners. Thirdly, Bem (1998) notes that minority of people in society were observed to have an erotic preference for same-sex partners. Therefore, it was necessary to have a single unitary theory that sought to explain same-sex and opposite-sex preference among men and women.
In designing the theory, Bem (1998) argues that he encountered fundamental challenge while accounting for the sexual orientations that are not dependent on biological sex of potential partners. He observes that such inadequacies in previous theories are what compelled him to capture sexual development and expression among women and men to be distinct as exemplified in EBE theory.
Furthermore, the author create an understanding by restating the central proposition of EBE theory that individuals are likely to be erotically attracted to people they perceive to be different during their childhood. For instance, most cultures polarize the sexes thereby making boys and girls to feel different from their opposite sex peers. This notion contributes to erotic attraction later in life. Since Bem’s critiques were concerned that the theory is lacking practical evident to support its proposition, the above explanation on gender polarization is indeed an attempt to defend EBE theory on the perspective of evidence. He further exemplifies the fact that polarization of both gender leads to erotic attraction to the opposite sex at the latter stages of human development is clear evidence that biological sex is a determining factor when an individual is selecting a sexual partner.
Although he attempts to explain the idea that the polarization of the sexes can lead to indifferent feeling among children in the sense that they tend to behave uniquely from their opposite, he fails to account for some of the contributing factors leading to perceived differences towards same sex peers. In spite of the fact that he mentions the idea of gender nonconformity, it may not be the sole reason for same sex erotic attraction and orientation.
Finally, Bem (1998) defends his theory against androcentric accusations from his critiques. He admits that his theory had failed to provide a working definition of the word ‘erotic attraction’. The latter led to misinterpretation of the concept to mean ‘sexual desire’. Regardless of this limitation, Bem (1998) goes head to explain that his theory was founded on prior research and that his piece of writing should not be perceived like any other male generated theory that demonstrate sexual orientation as purely erotic sexual desires.
Personally, I can easily identify with EBE theory especially when Bem (1998) elaborates on cultural practice of treating boys and girls as distinct entities. I strongly believe that the latter positively contributes to erotic attraction among opposite sexes later in life. Personally, I grew up in an extended family. However, myr parents clearly drew a line when it came to gender specific roles. On the same note, school life was not different since teachers successfully created an imaginary gap between boys and girls in terms of capability. In addition, his explanation on the elements of sexual orientation such as sexual desire, sexual behavior, self identification and romantic feelings is highly informative owing to the fact that I can now fully appreciate why sexual orientation between men and women as well as between members of the same sex are perceived with mixed reactions yet human beings are biological identical.
Reference
Bem, D.J. (1998). “Is EBE Theory Supported by the Evidence? Is It Androcentric? A Reply to Peplau et al. (1998)”.Psychological Review, 105 (2): 395-398.