Is sexuality ‘natural’?
Human sexuality, defined as the constitution of an individual in relation to their sexual behaviour
and the capacity to have erotic experiences, is a crucial part in the construction of our individual
identity and of our social reality. It has vast socio-political implications and plays a major role in
everybody’s lives no matter what we do or who we are. Thus, it comes as no surprise that one
would question its nature. Sexuality is multi dimensional, governed by an interplay of various
factors which interact with one another to construct our sexual behaviour. To take a purely
biological, ‘natural’ approach to this issue would be neglecting the equally significant social factors
which also have a crucial role to play in the constitution of our sexuality and vice versa. This essay
will first consider the essentialist view of sexuality as ‘natural’ and biological, followed by the
problems surrounding this argument. I will then discuss the alternative perspectives of sexuality as
a social construct as well as a product of self reflexivity, concluding with a reconciliation of these
different perspectives.
First and foremost, let me start my essay by discussing how human sexual behaviour and
orientation can be seen as natural and rooted in our biology. On a theoretical note, we can look to
early essentialist1 studies from the discipline of sexology, which saw sexuality as an essential part
of our biological and genetic makeup and that we are all born with a sexual nature (Seidman,
2003), for a better understanding of the ‘nature’ side of this debate. In Psychopathia Sexualis,
Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (1969), one of the pioneering sexologists, described sex as a
“natural instinct” that “demands fulfilment”. The Freudian (1961) view theorises that human beings,
from birth, possess an instinctual sexual libido rooted in one’s biological makeup. On an empirical
note, various scientific studies over history have been conducted by sociobiological theorists which
have resulted in genetic and anatomical proof backing this perspective. In 1957, psychologist
Evelyn Hooker made history by conducting the first test on biological determinism of one’s sexual
orientation, concluding that it was natural, dismissing the social deterministic standpoint. Genomic
1 Essentialism believes that human behaviour is natural, predetermined by one’s genetic,
biological and physiological makeup and is not subjected to change.
Human sexuality, defined as the constitution of an individual in relation to their sexual behaviour
and the capacity to have erotic experiences, is a crucial part in the construction of our individual
identity and of our social reality. It has vast socio-political implications and plays a major role in
everybody’s lives no matter what we do or who we are. Thus, it comes as no surprise that one
would question its nature. Sexuality is multi dimensional, governed by an interplay of various
factors which interact with one another to construct our sexual behaviour. To take a purely
biological, ‘natural’ approach to this issue would be neglecting the equally significant social factors
which also have a crucial role to play in the constitution of our sexuality and vice versa. This essay
will first consider the essentialist view of sexuality as ‘natural’ and biological, followed by the
problems surrounding this argument. I will then discuss the alternative perspectives of sexuality as
a social construct as well as a product of self reflexivity, concluding with a reconciliation of these
different perspectives.
First and foremost, let me start my essay by discussing how human sexual behaviour and
orientation can be seen as natural and rooted in our biology. On a theoretical note, we can look to
early essentialist1 studies from the discipline of sexology, which saw sexuality as an essential part
of our biological and genetic makeup and that we are all born with a sexual nature (Seidman,
2003), for a better understanding of the ‘nature’ side of this debate. In Psychopathia Sexualis,
Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (1969), one of the pioneering sexologists, described sex as a
“natural instinct” that “demands fulfilment”. The Freudian (1961) view theorises that human beings,
from birth, possess an instinctual sexual libido rooted in one’s biological makeup. On an empirical
note, various scientific studies over history have been conducted by sociobiological theorists which
have resulted in genetic and anatomical proof backing this perspective. In 1957, psychologist
Evelyn Hooker made history by conducting the first test on biological determinism of one’s sexual
orientation, concluding that it was natural, dismissing the social deterministic standpoint. Genomic
1 Essentialism believes that human behaviour is natural, predetermined by one’s genetic,
biological and physiological makeup and is not subjected to change.
