Abstract: The paper explores the debate between viewing homosexuality as a natural variation or a developmental condition, examining psychological factors and sociopolitical context. It discusses the role of family dynamics, particularly absent or negative father figures and overprotective mothers, in the development of homosexuality. The article also covers perspectives on advancing homosexual rights, the politicization of the topic, and the debate around genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors as causes of homosexuality. The potential for therapeutic conversion is examined.
Keywords: homosexuality, mother dependency, absent father, pseudohomosexuality, conversion therapy, neurotic family, cultural anthropology, mother goddess.
Introduction
Scientific research examines various biological, genetic, and environmental factors associated with sexual orientation diversity in humans. This overview presents current research findings while recognizing that interpretation of the evidence occurs within broader societal discussions. A notable observation in studying this subject is the apparent disconnect between mainstream media
portrayals and extensive academic research examining psychological factors. While media coverage often emphasizes
biological determinism, exemplified by authors like Chandler Burr who argue for purely genetic
origins, 1 there exists a substantial body of research literature, including
numerous case studies, that presents alternative viewpoints and more complex explanatory models.
Neurotic Family Situation
Given that psychologists frequently encounter homosexual clients in their practice, the topic is extensively
discussed in psychological literature. While perspectives vary across different psychological schools, there is a
common understanding that views it as an altered development of sexuality, often linked to dysfunctional family
dynamics. A recurring pattern observed involves an emotionally distant or absent father figure combined with an
overprotective, psychologically controlling mother.
The validity of these observations can be evaluated through numerous documented case studies. One notable example
comes from C. G. Jung, a pioneering psychoanalyst, who describes what he considers a typical case
involving a thirteen-year-old girl. 2 In this case, the father is entirely
consumed by his professional life while the mother attempts to fulfill her social aspirations through the child.
Their marriage lacks emotional intimacy. The mother’s attention becomes fixated on the child, who faces
pressure to achieve success to satisfy maternal pride. Consequently, the girl develops neurotic symptoms and begins
experiencing erotic fantasies focused on her female teacher.
The children of such mothers are practically nothing more than dolls, to be dressed up and adorned at pleasure. They are nothing but mute figures on the chessboard of their parents’ egoism, and the maddening thing is that all this is done under the cloak of selfless devotion to the dear child, whose happiness is the sole aim of the mother’s life. But in actual fact the child is not given a grain of real love. That is why she suffers from premature sexual symptoms, like so many other neglected and ill-treated children, while at the same time she is deluged with so-called maternal love. The homosexual fantasies clearly show that her need for real love is not satisfied; consequently she craves love from her teachers, but of the wrong sort. If tender feelings are thrown out at the door, then sex in violent form comes in through the window, for besides love and tenderness a child needs understanding.
Homosexual Rights
The emergence of psychological perspectives on homosexuality historically contributed to advancing homosexual
rights. Prior to psychological theories and diagnoses, homosexuality was condemned as either “moral
depravity” or attributed to “genetic degeneracy.” Legal prohibition of homosexual relationships
led to persecution, blackmail, and various forced interventions including sterilization, lobotomy, and electroshock
therapy. In many historical contexts (and still in some regions today), homosexuality was punishable by death,
driving many individuals to suicide.
The contributions of psychologists, including Freud and Jung, who demonstrated that homosexuality stemmed from
early psychological experiences and internal mechanisms, challenged both religious condemnation and genetic
determinism theories. This understanding showed that homosexual behaviour wasn’t simply a willful choice for
pleasure, nor was it evidence of genetic defect. This new framework eliminated the logical basis for persecution,
significantly contributing to the liberation of homosexuals from systematic oppression. Nevertheless,
discriminatory practices persist in certain American jurisdictions and developing nations.
Therefore, regardless of one’s stance on psychological theories, the field deserves recognition for
establishing a foundation for humane treatment of individuals regardless of sexual orientation. This historical
context is particularly relevant for homosexual readers, who may hold overly critical views of psychological
approaches to sexuality.
Politicization
Contemporary political discourse surrounding this topic has created a paradoxical situation. While many
institutions continue to teach theories of homosexuality as rooted in developmental factors, mainstream political
and social commentary invariably presents it as a natural sexual variation. This disparity has led to demands for
the removal of certain academic materials from universities. The developments in the United States provide an
illuminating parallel.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 3 removed homosexuality from
its diagnostic manual of psychiatric disorders. 4 This decision followed an
intensive campaign by gay rights activists who argued that the psychiatric classification reinforced negative
societal attitudes and contributed to self-stigmatization among homosexuals. Given the historical context discussed
earlier, the validity of this argument remains debatable. The decision came after contentious internal debates and
was ultimately determined by a membership vote, with 58% supporting the removal. This marked an unprecedented
instance where a clinical diagnosis was determined by popular vote rather than scientific consensus, drawing
criticism from researchers advocating for evidence-based decision-making.
The declassification did not deter homosexual individuals from continuing to seek psychological treatment. In
response, the APA issued a 1987 statement declaring that even “ego-dystonic” homosexuality should not
be considered pathological. 5 This meant that even when individuals experienced
distress about their orientation, it should not be treated as a condition requiring intervention targeting the
sexual orientation itself. Nevertheless, many APA-affiliated psychologists continued providing treatment to
homosexual clients, and numerous practitioners maintained their professional viewpoint regarding homosexuality as a
developmental disorder, despite the official organizational position.
Sociocultural Factors
The core argument advanced by the APA and gay advocacy groups maintains that the perception of homosexuality as an
“illness” stems primarily from sociocultural context. They argue that in a different cultural
framework, individuals would not be considered deviant and thus would not seek conversion to heterosexuality. While
this perspective holds some merit, it may oversimplify a complex issue. This approach to ethical and cultural
relativism led to controversial positions in the 1994 publication, particularly regarding pedophile
organizations. 6 The document suggested that the classification of a sexual
orientation as pathological depends on cultural values, implying that pedophilia should not be diagnosed as a
disorder unless the individual experiences personal distress about the condition. This position received support
from an organization advocating for pedophilia legitimization. 7
This sociocultural interpretation has strong political implications. It positions conversion therapy as unethical
on the grounds that it reinforces cultural stigmatization of homosexuality. This has sparked intense opposition to
homosexual therapy in the United States, sometimes taking on dogmatic characteristics. The APA and gay advocacy
groups frequently assert a lack of evidence supporting successful therapeutic conversion of homosexuals. However,
this claim appears to conflict with available research evidence. My current review includes multiple rigorous
research studies and numerous case reports from practicing psychologists across various theoretical orientations.
These documents indicate that a significant proportion of patients achieved conversion and maintained heterosexual
relationships in long-term follow-up studies, often in successful marriages.
Ideological Worldview
The stark contrast between empirical evidence and politically driven narratives evokes parallels with the ironic
skepticism that emerged in political dictatorships, such as the Soviet Union, where certain facts were deemed to
“not exist” by ideological authorities.
Regardless of the validity of psychological explanatory models, it is dogmatic to categorically deny that
homosexuality could ever manifest as an expression of underlying psychological processes. Dogmatic thinking serves
only to eliminate doubt entirely, abandoning scientific inquiry in favour of power dynamics. Current efforts in the
United States to prohibit therapeutic conversion represent a new form of restriction on homosexual individuals, who
should retain the freedom to explore these questions privately with therapists. The irony of this situation was
evident in Chicago 2000, where ex-homosexuals demonstrated outside the APA congress, advocating for their right to
seek therapy.
This context helps explain the striking disconnect in perspectives mentioned at the outset. In Sweden, political
correctness has fostered an absolute conviction that homosexuality invariably has a biological basis, and that
genuine conversion has never occurred. This perspective appears to stem from an extensive political campaign that
established dogmas designed to obscure decades of documented clinical observations in professional literature.
However, within therapeutic settings, removed from political discourse, a different understanding prevails.
Genetic Explanations
The psychological perspective might be succinctly captured by Jung’s aforementioned observation: “If
tender feelings are thrown out at the door, then sex in violent form comes in through the window…” The
concept that human sexuality and social functioning can develop atypically during formative years appears plausible
and is supported by evidence. However, genetic explanations maintain widespread popularity across contexts, as
exemplified by media coverage of the “alcoholism gene.” Regarding homosexuality, gay advocacy groups,
somewhat contrary to historical evidence, maintain that genetic causation would necessarily increase social
acceptance. Consequently, genetic and neurological findings are often prematurely publicized with excessive
emphasis.
This is illustrated by the extensive media coverage of neurologist Simon LeVay’s research attempting to
identify distinct homosexual brain structures. 8 LeVay, drawing on
Dean Hamer’s research, 9 proposes that homosexual individuals’
hypothalamus is structured similarly to women’s, suggesting a genetic basis for this structural difference.
Additionally, author Chandler Burr asserts that homosexuality originates from the genetic region
Xq28. 10 These claims have prompted significant scientific controversy,
with critics identifying methodological flaws and over-interpretation of data. Scientific American (November 1995)
published a detailed critique of both the empirical foundations and conclusions. 11
Several methodological questions remain unaddressed. For instance, could hypothalamic size variations be attributed
to the effects of AIDS in the deceased subjects? Additionally, the sexual orientation of the deceased subjects
could not be definitively verified. Current evidence suggests that genetic and neurological explanations for
homosexuality remain speculative. It is noteworthy that the aforementioned authors and researchers identify as
homosexual themselves.
Brain and Body Effects
Claims about structural differences in homosexual brains remain unverified and face contradicting research.
Moreover, even if such differences were confirmed, this wouldn’t necessarily indicate genetic causation.
Jeffrey Satinover notes that both brain and body undergo measurable changes from childhood experiences,
particularly traumatic ones. 12 The brain demonstrates remarkable
plasticity — for instance, blind individuals who learn Braille develop enlargement in brain
regions controlling their reading fingers. 13 Therefore, if limbic system
differences corresponding to opposite-sex patterns were discovered in homosexual individuals, this could reflect
early-life acquisition of sexual orientation, typically established by age five. Thus, documented psychological
environmental influences on brain structure suggest that structural variations in male homosexuals might develop
during formative years, potentially resulting in more feminine cognitive and functional patterns. However, certain
characteristic mannerisms likely represent semi-conscious acquisitions forming part of the persona.
Multifactorial Explanation
Questions of heredity versus environment are highly complex. Satinover provides a particularly cogent analysis of
genetic interpretation, explaining sexuality’s multifactorial nature. This framework acknowledges
contributions from biological, psychological, and cultural factors. Unlike direct genetic traits such as eye
colour, behavioural patterns in higher organisms develop through multiple genetic prerequisites interacting with
environmental and learning factors. Even if certain genetic traits appear more frequently among homosexual
individuals, possessing such genetic composition doesn’t necessarily determine homosexual orientation. Rather
than seeking direct genetic causation, the relevant question becomes one of degree: what percentage of
homosexuality is genetically influenced — 1% or 30%? Understanding these complex gene-behaviour
relationships highlights the enduring relevance of psychological perspectives, particularly regarding formative
experiences.
Using an analogy, genes represent an art student’s inherent, limited colour palette. However, the final
artistic expression varies dramatically depending on influences like mentorship, potentially developing into cubist
or impressionist styles, while still revealing the artist’s distinctive genetic “palette.” This
framework helps understand genetic relationships. Media reports suggesting genetic determinism across human
behaviours warrant skepticism, except for direct traits like eye colour or hair texture. Humans exhibit far greater
complexity than Gregor Mendel’s peas. Even cats require experiential learning to actualize hunting
instincts. These relationships necessitate continued consideration of psychological perspectives on sexual
development, as developmental disruptions can impair natural instinctual expression.
Twin Studies
Twin studies offer potential insight into the genetic contribution to homosexual development. In King and
McDonald’s 1992 twin study, 14 46 homosexual men and women (identified
through an HIV study) participated in research examining their own and their twin siblings’ sexual
orientation. The non-concordant sexual orientation in identical twins (75% of siblings heterosexual, compared to
85% in fraternal twins) indicated genetic factors alone insufficiently explain development of sexual
orientation.
This study’s credibility is enhanced by its participant source, as it is unlikely to harbour political
motivations. While methodological limitations may exist, the data, if reasonably accurate, challenges theories of
innate sexuality, particularly given the minimal difference between identical and fraternal twin correlations (25%
versus 15%).
Bailey and Pillard’s 1991 study, 15 the largest to date, examined 56
identical twins, 54 fraternal twins, 142 biological brothers, and 57 adoptive brothers, with at least one
homosexual brother per pair. Results showed homosexuality concordance in 52% of identical twins, 22% of fraternal
twins, 9.2% of biological brothers, and 10.5% of adoptive brothers. Science (December 1993) suggested these
findings support environmental rather than genetic determination. 16 Notably,
biological brothers sharing 50% genetic material showed lower concordance than adoptive brothers with no genetic
similarity. Fraternal twins, genetically equivalent to regular siblings, demonstrated higher concordance,
suggesting environmental influence. The 52% concordance in identical twins, sharing nearly identical genes and
upbringing, appears low for genetic determination.
Overall Impression
The higher concordance in identical versus fraternal twins might reflect their complete similarity leading to more
uniform environmental experiences and social responses. However, these studies warrant caution. Larger sample sizes
would strengthen conclusions. Bailey and Pillard’s recruitment of twins for their sexuality study through gay
publications may not represent the broader twin population, as it could over-select for twins where both members
identify as gay. Additionally, non-responding twins’ orientations were reported by their participating
brothers, possibly further skewing concordance rates.
While Kallman’s 1952 twin studies showed higher correlation, these findings are now considered
invalid. 17 The mere presence of genetic influence proves little, as genes
invariably play some role. The critical question is whether genetic determination is sufficient to classify
homosexuality as constitutional. Current evidence appears insufficient to support this conclusion.
Hormonal Hypothesis
The extent to which genetics influence sexual orientation is still uncertain, as the expected level of concordance
for homosexuality among identical twins has not been conclusively determined. However, if prenatal hormonal factors
were solely responsible, both identical and fraternal twins should show near 100% correlation due to shared
prenatal hormonal environment. While hormones influence sex-specific development, the hormonal hypothesis lacks
credibility as a comprehensive explanation for human sexuality. Attempts at hormonal therapy for heterosexual
modification have proved unsuccessful. Perloff conclusively identifies homosexuality as a psychological
phenomenon. 18
Recent research examining increased homosexuality among younger brothers yielded results consistent with
psychological models. Historically, younger sons more frequently become emotionally dependent on mothers, while
firstborn sons typically align with fathers. Additionally, increasing parental discord over time exposes younger
siblings more frequently to factors associated with psychological theories of homosexual development.
Nature (March 2000) reported a statistical correlation between homosexuality and shorter index fingers, attributed
to prenatal hormonal exposure. 19 While this doesn’t support hormones as
an exclusive cause, it suggests their potential role in increasing developmental probability. Cases of
hormone-induced hermaphroditism 20 and transsexualism fall outside the scope of
this investigation.
Cultural Anthropology
Lacking strong constitutional evidence, could homosexuality be purely cultural? Anthropologists observe harmonious,
non-neurotic characteristics in many traditional societies. Burenhult notes the absence of homoeroticism in modern
Trobriand Islands, 21 while Margaret Mead reported similar findings in
original New Guinea cultures: Arapesh and Mundugumor. 22 If accurate, these
observations suggest culture’s primacy in sexual development.
Some anthropological perspectives contrast health issues in modern societies, like heart disease, jealousy, and
sexual violence, with traditional societies that ostensibly lived more naturally and did not exhibit those
problems. This viewpoint conflicts with sociocultural models, which consider all human behaviours as natural and
see culture as simply providing frameworks for evaluating those behaviours. The sociocultural perspective proposes
that various behaviours have persisted throughout history but have been suppressed by cultural norms at different
times. In contrast, the anthropological view suggests culture fundamentally shapes human behaviour, including
sexuality. According to some anthropological accounts, certain traditional societies like early 20th century Samoa
existed without neuroses, deviations, or homosexuality. However, the evidence for lack of homosexuality in such
societies remains contested.
Stereotyping Explanations
The anthropological view of traditional societies as free from neuroses and homosexuality parallels utopian social
concepts like those proposed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, Margaret Mead faced criticism about
potential biases in her methodology and interpretation of data on sexuality in Samoa. 23 She later acknowledged the need to carefully evaluate claims by native peoples about the
absence of homoeroticism in their societies. Challenges include language barriers, cultural taboos discussing
sexuality, retrospective changes in narratives, and tendencies to provide expected responses to researchers. Some
observers note that non-conforming individuals often faced elimination in traditional societies; so outward harmony
may have masked underlying oppression. Enforced societal homogeneity can prove destructive despite appearances of
contentment. Claims about lack of homosexuality in any society require careful scrutiny of methods and data.
Davenport’s study of 636 Melanesians 24 highlights the challenges in
defining homosexuality across cultures. While the community reported no exclusively homosexual individuals, they
did acknowledge occasional same-sex sexual contact among married persons considered heterosexual. Notably, four
unmarried men existed in the society — two rejected for infidelity and known for same-sex
interest, and two citing poverty for not marrying. Additionally, two unmarried women claimed fear of childbirth.
While these explanations rely on stereotypes, they suggest the possibility of underlying same-sex attraction. The
study illustrates the difficulty in conclusively determining the presence or absence of homosexuality in a culture
using Western definitions and perspectives.
Cultural Variations
While claims of homosexuality’s complete absence in traditional cultures remain unproven, anthropological
observations reveal significant cross-cultural variation exceeding what repression alone might explain. Ford and
Beach describe how the occurrence of temporary sexual relationships between persons of the same sex varied across
cultures, being common in some societies while rare in others. 25
Mead argues that the sexual harmony in Samoan culture stems from their child development practices and extended
family structures. 26 She suggests that having a broad network of adult role
models helps guide youth development, even if their biological parents are less involved. This highlights how
cultural factors like family conditions and social environments can shape sexuality. It seems that homosexuality
was relatively uncommon in hunter-gatherer societies that make up 99% of human history, 27 implying its higher prevalence today may be a more recent phenomenon. Apache culture
provides an example of a balanced psychosocial environment due to their clear gender roles and equal parental
involvement for children.
Animal Studies
Although homoerotic behaviours have been observed in animals, researchers have traditionally been cautious about
drawing conclusions since individuals often still exhibit heterosexual activity as well. 28 For example, male dolphins may attempt contact with younger males, typically after
unsuccessful heterosexual encounters. While Bagemihl identifies homoeroticism in 450 species, 29 his broad definitions may equate social bonding habits in animals to human
homosexuality. Behaviours like male lions rubbing manes or chimpanzees making mouth-to-mouth gestures likely serve
social functions rather than sexual ones, similar to human cultural practices such as cheek kissing. More evidence
is needed before correlating these observation to human sexuality.
Misimprinting
There are anecdotal examples of how seagulls of the same sex live together for a period of time. Whether this can
illuminate human homosexuality is unclear. Desmond Morris confirms that males in certain bird species can be
artificially misimprinted by being separated from females during development. 30
The misimprinting, which sometimes means that male birds build nests together, is difficult to break. In nature,
such phenomena are very rare. In Morris’s work, consistent biologism leads to the conclusion that
homosexuality in humans is a “misimprinting,” and not natural. But drawing strict parallels between
animals and humans inevitably leads to an oversimplified view of human sexuality.
Bonobos
Among primates, we find more interesting examples of social conduct, as discussed in Bagemihl’s book about
animal sexuality. 29 The bonobo, distantly related to chimpanzees, has been
portrayed in the popular press engaging in continuous sexual orgies. In truth,
pseudocopulation occurs once per 1.5 hours and lasts on average 13 seconds.
The leading expert in the field, Franz de Waal, 31 emphasizes that the
behaviour’s primary function is an expression of sympathy, even if there can be a mixing with sexual
feelings. It serves to avoid conflict and strengthens social bonds among bonobos.
Males also engage in penis-rubbing against each other, a practice that could be compared to rhythmic handshaking
among humans. Interestingly, bonobos perform a copulating motion even against their children, which strengthens the
empathic bond between individuals. However, it cannot support the naturalness of pedophilia from a human
perspective. Bagemihl’s interpretation of this behaviour with one-sided, sexual glasses might underestimate
animals’ emotional life and complexity. As with dogs’ embarrasing “humping” behaviour, we
should approach these observations with an open mind and avoid projecting our own human values and interpretations
onto their actions.
Baboons
Bonobos lack pair bonding and the nuclear family structure, distinguishing their sexual activity from humans.
Baboons may provide more relevant insights into human homosexuality. In baboon troops, some adult males who
haven’t achieved dominance or access to females form stable relationships with younger males, who appear to
serve as female substitutes psychologically. 32 These partnerships involve
protection for the younger male, and observers have documented mating postures and mutual genital contact, though
without climax. The dominant male typically seeks female partners when circumstances permit. This pattern parallels
some psychological theories that view homosexuality as an alternative pathway when heterosexual development faces
obstacles. However, interpreting these behaviours purely in sexual terms requires caution. The bonds between older
and younger baboons might primarily serve emotional and social functions, similar to mentor-student
relationships.
Animals often display pseudosexual manners and postures that function to strengthen social bonds and reduce
aggression. Some biological theorists have proposed that homoeroticism evolved from a social submission instinct,
as exemplified in young male baboon behaviour. 33 This hypothesis attempts to
resolve why exclusively homosexual genes would persist despite natural selection pressures against them, as a
social submission instinct would offer survival advantages. However, this remains a speculative proposal requiring
further evidence.
Archetypal Explanation
Robert Hopcke, a homosexual scholar, proposes a distinctive theory supporting constitutional
homosexuality. 34 His theory builds on the concept that the psyche isn’t
blank at birth but contains innate archetypal models. While sexual development is partially shaped by external role
models, Hopcke argues for the existence of innate psychological patterns beyond mere instincts. These innate
models, or archetypes, include male, female, and androgynous forms, with the latter serving as a template for
homosexuality. He points to the widespread occurrence of transvestite shamans and priests across cultures as
empirical support. These shamans often adopted feminine attire and vocal patterns during rituals, exemplified by
the berdache shamans of Native American cultures.
However, this theory faces significant challenges. Most shamans, like modern transvestites, were likely not
homosexual. 35 Furthermore, Hopcke overlooks that berdache were typically
selected in childhood. 36 These chosen individuals were separated from their
communities and initiated into both shamanic practices and feminine roles, including dress. Psychological research
suggests that such early gender identity inversion commonly leads to homosexual development, indicating the
berdache phenomenon might reflect environmental rather than constitutional factors. The feminine presentation of
shamans could alternatively represent a symbolic transcendence of earthly existence through androgynous identity,
establishing a spiritual “third gender.” Taylor suggests the berdache tradition may derive from the
cult of the mother goddess, where priests were expected to exhibit feminine characteristics. 37
The Mother Dependency Theory
According to prevailing psychological models, homosexual development often correlates with intense maternal
bonding. Clinical studies commonly describe a consistent dynamic: an overprotective mother who creates emotional
dependency, paired with an emotionally distant or absent father. This pattern illustrates what psychologists
describe as homosexuality’s “reparative” function — a psychological adaptation
to navigate away from an emotionally challenging childhood environment. Bieber 38 provides the following example:
The patient’s mother was more close-binding intimate and overprotective than warmly affectionate. His father, pleasant but detached and ineffectual, was dominated by his wife. […] He was said to be a “lovely” boy. Always trying to please, he never took a stand in an argument. […] In his early school years, his isolation from male peers persisted. He played with girls and often played alone with dolls. He was called a “sissy.” Once his teacher asked him and a little girl who lived near-by to stay after school to clean up. His arrival home late and in the company of a girl greatly upset his mother who thought surely something sexual must have occurred. The only time he recalled a beating from his father, who also threatened to take him to the police, was when the patient and a girl were discovered inspecting each other’s genitals. It had been the mother who had urged the father on, but during the whipping she implored him to stop. […] At the age of thirteen he met a slightly older boy who became the first person outside the family with whom he had a continuing relationship albeit a homosexual one. He was compulsive about engaging in this secret act and tried to meet his partner at every available opportunity. He feared his mother might in some way see through him, find out, and pounce upon him. There was a great turmoil when, some six years later, he made it obvious to his parents that he was having a homosexual affair. They were very distressed and worried about what the neighbors would think. He stood his ground and quietly moved out. “I thought my mother would collapse when she found out I moved.” She could not believe her son would dare flout her control, nor could she believe he had the strength to assert himself against her. She predicted that he would come “crawling back” in less than a week. Vindictively, she froze the funds of their joint bank account. […] During sessions when he talked of his father he summed up his opinion of him with the comment, “He was a nothing.”
This case illustrates several key patterns in psychological development. The dominant mother creates significant
obstacles for the son’s psychological separation from early maternal identification. The ineffective father
fails as a role model and lacks the strength to facilitate the son’s separation from maternal influence.
Figuratively, it represents an umbilical cord needing to be severed.
This developmental challenge particularly affects male children. Boys must achieve more complete maternal
separation than girls to establish their identity. While mothers naturally serve as role models for daughters, sons
require a fundamental break from the early mother-child symbiotic relationship. This more dramatic separation
process carries higher risks of developmental complications, potentially explaining the higher prevalence of
homosexuality among males.
Hudson and Jacot propose that the psychological wound from maternal separation shapes fundamental differences in
male and female cognitive and behavioural patterns. 39 Their research suggests
that men tend to develop more abstract thinking patterns and emotional detachment from concrete reality, while
women maintain more grounded, holistic perspectives. This separation process may enhance the male’s
enterprising mindset, his adventurousness and aggression, but can also result in more psychologically
unidimensional development.
Male Peer Groups and Development
The concept of “maternal liberation” primarily represents a psychological
transformation — a fundamental shift in the young man’s psyche that transcends infantile
consciousness. This internal psychological process parallels external behavioural changes. As
Anthony Storr 40 explains:
It is characteristic of this pre-adolescent phase that boys gang up together and shun the company of girls whom they despise as inferior beings. It is a time when affirmation of the male role is being sought; and, just as in primitive societies women are excluded from male initiation rites, so, in our own, there has to be a time when the boy severs his tie with the opposite sex in order to establish himself as male. Women have to be put in their proper place before a man feels strong enough to deal with them; and the exaltation of his own sex combined with the denigration of the opposite sex is part of the process by which a boy emancipates himself from his mother and learns to take his place in the world of men.
The homosexual male has been unable to take this step for the reasons outlined above, and so remains in a condition in which not only are women shunned but in which men remain emotionally important to him. The essential feature of male homosexuality is the persistent adoration of the masculine rather than the feminine. It is the emotional attitude of the boy who looks up to men but cannot feel himself yet to be one of them.
Family Disruption and Development
Donald J. West emphasizes that maternal binding is not the sole cause of homosexual development. 41 Various impediments to heterosexual development can produce similar outcomes. For instance,
maternal loss may lead boys to seek paternal affection through assuming a surrogate spouse role. This highlights
the crucial importance of balanced masculine role models in a boy’s environment, including not only fathers
but also traditionally masculine figures such as firefighters, police officers, teachers, and older male
students.
Marie-Louise von Franz observes an increasing prevalence of mother-complex issues in modern
society, 42 particularly noting the rise in homosexuality-manifesting maternal
attachment. She frames this phenomenon within broader cultural development, identifying an underlying religious
dimension. The rise of broken families, where fathers become marginal figures, raises concerning implications.
Contemporary society lacks compelling ideals that could serve as psychological guideposts. Traditional religious
frameworks, now largely diluted and antiquated, no longer function effectively as paternal ideals. Instead,
materialistic thinking predominates — essentially a primitive form of mother-attachment. The
modern welfare state functions as a surrogate mother goddess. This parallels ancient matriarchal societies, where
homoeroticism emerged as a form of protest against the dominant feminine goddess.
Historical evidence shows periodic surges in homoerotic expression, a phenomenon challenging purely biological
explanations while supporting psychological models. Psychoanalyst R. Schärf Kluger examines the
“epidemic increase” of male homoeroticism during matriarchal periods. 43 She explains this as male libido concentrating inward to dissolve maternal attachment
(broadly defined). Kluger concludes that homosexuality fundamentally relates to mother-attachment, with male libido
seeking and projecting virility onto other men.
Mythological Perspectives
A controversial historical-cultural interpretation suggests male homosexuality represents a developmental stage in
masculinity’s evolution from feminine divine dominance. In Erich Neumann’s view, primitive hero
archetypes manifest as handsome young protagonists like Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, and Narcissus, who were unable to
overcome the dominance of mother goddesses. 44 This perspective partially
validates Hopcke’s archetypal explanation: these divine youths, like homosexual men, attempt escape from
feminine influence but remain mother-bound. Ancient Athens exemplifies this dynamic, where increased pederasty and
misogyny coincided with unprecedented cultural advancement.
This perspective suggests that male artistic and intellectual achievement historically flourished when societies
moved away from goddess worship and concomitant worldly values, such as beauty and prestige. According to this
view, a man who subordinates himself to the feminine spirit risks having his creative potential stifled. The
argument frames male autonomy from women as essential for realizing creative and cultural contributions. When
Western civilization became established, the mother goddess no longer posed a threat, and homoeroticism and
misogyny receded.
Mirror-Seeking Behaviour
Psychological theory suggests healthy heterosexual development involves finding complementary traits in
opposite-sex partners. Conversely, homosexual individuals often seek an idealized
self-image — the mother-liberated man they aspire to become. Liberace
(1919 – 1987) exemplifies this pattern: compensating for maternal dependency through flamboyant
masculine display while encouraging his partner to surgically mirror his appearance. This dynamic offers
partial liberation from maternal attachment, representing what several psychologists describe as an
emergency solution. Storr says that “[t]he homosexual’s fear of women springs
from his difficulty in breaking clear of his mother. For him, to become emotionally involved with a woman is to
retreat once more into arms which may be loving but which form a prison from which he has in any case only
partially escaped.” 45 While preferable to complete developmental
stagnation, this narcissistic resolution remains fundamentally incomplete.
Dependency and Power
Lionel Ovesey elucidates the psychological foundations of homosexuality. 46
While the maternal attachment and associated fear of women as sexual beings form the sexual component, two
additional Oedipal elements — dependency and power — are relevant for both
homosexual and heterosexual men. Warren Steinberg makes similar observations. 47
It’s widely recognized that defeat in power dynamics is often unconsciously interpreted as homoerotic
subjugation. This is reflected in American cinema’s frequent use of sodomitic metaphors, such as
“I’ll bust your ass!” An illustrative example is when a distinguished member of the Swedish
Academy bursts into a newspaper office declaring: “You have ass fucked me!” Ovesey notes that this
symbolism extends to other primates, where subordinate males may display feminine posturing and rear presentation,
mimicking mating behaviour. Men experiencing workplace humiliation and powerlessness sometimes dream of assuming
similar submissive positions. According to Ovesey, homosexuals actualize this psychological pattern rather than
maintaining it as verbal posturing like heterosexual men.
The mother complex, within this framework, represents an unconscious yearning for childhood-like dependence and
nurturing. To avoid regression, a substitution occurs where penis equals breast. The incorporation of a presumably
powerful man’s penis, either orally or anally, is perceived as transferring masculine strength to the
recipient. Thus, while the fantasy appears to compromise masculinity, it paradoxically serves to reinforce it.
Some primitive cultures feature rituals where initiates consume the father’s seminal fluid wrapped in leaves.
Among the Hottentots, young men would, after ritually acquiring masculine power, engage in intercourse with their
mothers, thereby reducing her status from “mother” to “woman” and temporarily breaking free
from the mother complex. Psychodynamic psychologists suggest that such archaic fantasies persist in our unconscious
and serve as templates for homosexual individuals’ magical reparative measures. However, this solution fails
to achieve a complete separation from maternal influence. The following case demonstrates these archaic reparative
fantasies, 48 where the father’s penis is symbolically incorporated and
magically employed to repair the young man’s perceived inadequacies, extending beyond sexual contexts:
Anal incorporation can be illustrated by the masturbation fantasy of a patient who developed an ambidextrous technique for simultaneous genital and anal masturbation. He manipulated his penis with one hand while he pumped a thermometer in and out of his anus with the other. In the fantasy that accompanied this act, he imagined himself sandwiched between his mother and father as they were having intercourse. The father’s penis entered the patient’s anus, emerged as the patient’s penis, and then penetrated the mother’s vagina.
Both passive and active roles manifest in homosexual attitude. While some individuals prefer the receptive
“feminine” position, others, from a psychological perspective, counteract their inner sense of
inadequacy by displaying exaggerated masculinity. This spectrum is exemplified by the contrast between
“queens” and “butch queens”. However, these represent two aspects of the same psychological
dynamic, and most homosexual individuals experience both passive and active roles.
Mythological Mother
The absent or negative father figure appears so frequently that many contemporary therapists consider the
disruption of father-son bonding the primary factor in homosexual development. While maternal overattachment can
develop from father absence independently, peer group dynamics often play a contributing role. The child’s
psyche may develop and maintain primitive fantasies with or without maternal psychopathology. Jung 49 proposes that many psychological effects attributed to maternal influence actually stem from
the child’s unconscious archetypal projections, which can transform the mother figure into either an
idealized or demonized mythological entity.
However, exposure to a nurturing father figure and engagement with conscious fantasy can dissolve such mythological
projections. This allows fantasies to develop within conscious awareness rather than remaining fixed in the
unconscious, preventing the reparative behaviours Ovesey describes. Children can successfully navigate challenging
childhood circumstances when supported by a rich spiritual and cultural framework that nurtures their fantasy life,
such as folklore. Given that few children experience ideal upbringings, developing a robust self-healing fantasy
life during their imaginative years is crucial for avoiding adult complexes. Once individuals reach adulthood and
adopt rationalistic thinking patterns, influencing these unconscious fantasies becomes more challenging, resulting
in the formation of complexes.
Absent Fathers
The absence of paternal role models emerges as a consistent theme across research findings.
Aardweg, 50 Bieber, 51
Kronemeyer, 52 West, 53 and
Westwood 54 all document that homosexual men, primarily due to absent or
negative father figures, developed unusually intense maternal relationships, leading to maternal identification and
failed paternal identification. Westwood’s study of 127 male homosexuals is particularly noteworthy as it
excluded therapy patients. This addresses the common criticism that homosexuals seeking therapy might be neurotic
for independent reasons, potentially skewing the interpretation of homosexuality as inherently neurotic.
Westwood’s findings suggest that these family dynamics exist even among non-patients.
Research consistently identifies the negative father image as a statistically significant factor. Abusive or
violent fathers can trigger an aversion to masculine nature in sons. Saghir and Robins document a predominantly
negative father image among their subjects. 55 Guy Corneau observes that
present, loving fathers enable young men to develop positive body image and pride. 56 He suggests that homosexuality can function as a ritual for reclaiming positive body
awareness, particularly for those with traumatic paternal relationships. Aligning with this perspective, Layland
argues that homoerotic fantasies in men stem from yearning for paternal love. 57
The absence of positive, authoritative father figures appears central to the issue. Modern society’s
relativistic nature makes it difficult for young men to find strong, positive male role models outside the family
unit. Even religious leaders struggle to maintain firm positions, leaving a concerning vacuum often filled by
extreme ideologies. Problems in a child’s immediate family frequently exacerbate gender identity issues. For
example, alcoholism, overbearing mothers who control their children, and disengaged fathers who ignore gender
nonconforming attitudes in their kids can all disrupt a child’s process of developing a gender identity.
Disrupted self-perception typically originates from poor parent-child relationships. When childhood emotional needs
remain unfulfilled, they risk becoming eroticized during early puberty. This framework suggests that homosexual
attraction often represents a search for authentic parental love, with individuals seeking paternal or maternal
love through same-sex relationships. Jung comments on a specific case: 58
Yet the longing for a man’s leadership continued to grow in the boy, taking the form of homosexual leanings — a faulty development that might never have come about had a man been there to educate his childish fantasies. The deviation towards homosexuality has, to be sure, numerous historical precedents. In ancient Greece, as also in certain primitive communities, homosexuality and education were practically synonymous. Viewed in this light, the homosexuality of adolescence is only a misunderstanding of the otherwise very appropriate need for masculine guidance.
Psychotherapy
Regarding the potential for change in sexual orientation, Sigmund Freud initially expressed skepticism about
therapeutic success with homosexual patients. However, his daughter Anna Freud soon documented a 50%
conversion rate among 8 patients. 59 Irving Bieber’s rigorous 1962 study
challenged the pessimistic outlook. 60 Among 106 homosexual/bisexual individuals
undergoing psychoanalysis, 27% achieved exclusive heterosexuality, confirmed through long-term follow-up studies.
Notably, 19% transitioned from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. Independent researchers have
corroborated these findings.
Mayerson and Lief’s study of 19 homosexual individuals showed that after an average of 4.5 years, 22% had
transitioned to exclusive heterosexuality, with 47.3% showing significant improvement. 61 Masters and Johnson reported a minimum success rate of 43.2% in their follow-up study of 67
patients. 62 NARTH 63 conducted an interview
study of 882 former homosexuals, including 726 who underwent professional therapy. 64 This study reported a 33% success rate, with only 13% remaining exclusively homosexual
post-treatment. However, the study’s methodology, based on patient surveys, doesn’t meet full
scientific rigor.
Additional research supports similar conclusions, though some reported success rates warrant scrutiny. For
instance, Kronemeyer’s claimed 80% conversion rate, despite his specialization in homosexual therapy,
requires careful consideration. 65 His results weren’t presented in a
formal scientific format. While many therapists report individual cases, these often lack comprehensive scientific
documentation, including proper follow-up studies.
The evidence suggests that success rates for transition to exclusive heterosexuality approximate those for treating
acute mental health issues. Significantly, even when complete conversion isn’t achieved, substantial
improvements often occur. These improvements may include abandoning destructive, promiscuous behaviours and
developing artistic or religious interests. Jolande Jacobi emphasizes this therapeutic aspect, noting that
even without full conversion, relative improvements often occur, leading to enhanced moral living. 66
Effective homosexual therapy requires making patients conscious of archaic reparative fantasies and developing
intellectual understanding of these patterns. Discontinuing homoerotic activity may trigger painful manifestations
of the unconscious mother complex; but this confrontation is necessary for complex integration and resolution. Many
therapists emphasize the importance of addressing fear of the opposite sex as a sexual being, which frequently
manifests as an almost phobic aversion to female genitalia. Some psychologists advocate overcoming this phobia
through willful sexual engagement with women. Self-directed therapy can sometimes prove effective.
Conclusion
Constitutional models of homosexuality face a significant limitation: they fail to account for the strong
statistical correlation between homosexuality and absent/negative fathers or dominating mothers. If hormonal
factors were primary, such clear psychological patterns should not emerge. Researchers promoting constitutional
theories often disregard childhood environmental data. The possibility of therapeutic conversion also challenges
purely constitutional explanations.
While some cases may have constitutional origins, others appear psychogenic. Attempts to establish genetic and
hormonal bases have proven difficult to replicate and often display theoretical and methodological weaknesses.
Psychological studies demonstrate greater replicability, and twin studies provide limited support for strong
genetic or hormonal determination.
Sexual development involves genetic, familial, and cultural factors. Unlike the copulation instinct among simple
creatures, human sexuality has strong psychological foundations and is significantly influenced by learning and
environment. The existence of specific fetishes demonstrates that sexual preferences cannot be purely genetic.
Kernberg has challenged the assumption that homosexuality is inherently natural, noting its frequent association
with narcissism and borderline pathology. 67 Judd Marmor and colleagues
view homosexuality as an ego-adaptation to challenging circumstances. 68 This
adaptation may represent the best available option compared to alternatives like narcissistic masculinity, passive
dependency, or psychopathy. Similar to how psychopathic traits can emerge as an adaptation to a criminal
environment, homosexuality may arise as a logical response to certain environmental conditions.
M-L von Franz’s assessment of homosexuality as fundamentally rooted in spiritual underdevelopment appears
valid. It represents a neurotic rebellion against mother-bondage in a materialistic society focused on security.
This reflects a spiritually impoverished culture unable to reinforce paternal values of moral uprightness and
authentic spirituality, leading to family instability. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be viewed solely as an issue
pertaining to the individual. A purely therapeutic approach addresses only symptoms. The phenomenon indicates
broader societal existential issues, with homoeroticism representing a collective call for elevated consciousness
beyond materialistic existence.
As a personal observation, homosexuality may unconsciously serve to establish outsider status, facilitating
individual development in an increasingly conformist culture. This outsider position has potentially contributed to
homosexuals’ achievements in various fields. Paradoxically, complete normalization might diminish this
creative impetus. The push for complete normalization may therefore be misguided.
© Mats Winther (2001; English version: 2024 November)
Notes
1. Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation (1996).
2. C. G. Jung, The Development of Personality (CW 17), para. 222 (1954).
3. American Psychiatric Association.
4. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 2nd ed. (1973).
5. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 3rd ed. rev. (1987).
6. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 4th ed. (1994).
7. North American Man-Boy Love Association.
8. Simon LeVay, A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Homosexual and
Heterosexual Men. Science 253: 1034-1037 (1991) and Simon LeVay, The Sexual Brain (1993).
9. Hamer, D. H.; Hu, S.; Magnuson, V. L.; Hu, N.;
Pattatucci, A. M. L. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual
orientation. Science 261: 321-327 (1993).
10. Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation (1996).
11. John Horgan, Gay Genes Revisited. Scientific American, Nov. 1995: 26.
(1995).
12. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996).
13. Sterr, A.; Müller, M.; Elbert, T.; Rockstroh, B.; Pantev, C.;
Taub, E., Changed perceptions in Braille readers. Nature 391: 134-135 (1998).
14. Michael King & Elizabeth McDonald, Homosexuals who are Twins. The
British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 160, March 1992, pp. 407-409 (1992).
15. Bailey, J., Pillard, R. A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation. Archives of
General Psychology 48: 1089-1096 (1991).
16. Neil Risch, Elizabeth Squires-Wheeler, Bronya Keats, Male Sexual Orientation
and Genetic Evidence. Science 262: 2063-65 (1993).
17. Kallman, F. J. A., A comparative twin study on the genetic aspects of
male homosexuality. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 115: pp. 283-298 (1952). The study
included 85 pairs of twins where at least one brother was homosexual. Of the 40 pairs of identical twins, both
brothers were homosexual. In the group of fraternal twins, more than half of the homosexual twins had a
heterosexual brother. Pairs point out that one can therefore not draw the conclusion that heritability is a
dominating factor. He notes that Kallman’s scientific work has been subjected to fierce criticism
(Pare, C. M. B., Etiology of Homosexuality: Genetic and Chromosomal Aspects
in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion, 1965). Marmor is also very suspicious of Kallman’s
information and notes that his twin studies in the fields of schizophrenia and tuberculosis have been refuted
(Marmor, Introduction in Sexual Inversion, 1965). Kallman has in a similar way produced
astonishing statistics by independently selecting patients and diagnosing schizophrenia himself. In the study on
homosexuals, Kallman made the selection mostly from mental patients, which can also distort the result. No later
study has managed to reproduce this striking correlation.
18. William H. Perloff, Hormones and Homosexuality in Marmor (ed.),
Sexual Inversion, 1965.
19. Terrance J. Williams, et al. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation,
Nature 404, pp. 455-456 (2000).
20. John L. Hampson, Determinants of Psychosexual Orientation in
Frank A. Beach (ed.), Sex & Behavior (1965).
21. Göran Burenhult, Speglingar av det förflutna, p. 186 (1986).
22. Margaret Mead, Kvinnligt, Manligt, Mänskligt, pp. 226ff (1968).
23. Margaret Mead, Cultural determinants of sexual behavior in
W. C. Young (ed.), Sex and internal secretions, vol. 2 (3rd ed.) (1961).
24. William Davenport, Sexual patterns and their regulation in a society of the
southwest pacific in Frank A. Beach (ed.), Sex & Behavior, pp. 202-203
(1965).
25. Ford, C. S. & Beach F. A., Patterns of Sexual Behavior
(1951).
26. Margaret Mead, Coming of age in Samoa (1928).
27. Marvin K. Opler, Anthropological and Cross-Cultural Aspects of Homosexuality
in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion (1965).
28. Denniston, R. H., Ambisexuality in Animals in Marmor (ed.),
Sexual Inversion (1965).
29. Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
(1999).
30. Desmond Morris, Det Mänskliga Menageriet, pp. 148-151 (1971).
31. Frans de Waal & Frans Lanting, Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape (1997) and
Frans de Waal, Bonobo Sex and Society in Scientific American, March 95,
pp. 82-88 (1995).
32. Ford, C. S. & Beach, F. A., Patterns of Sexual Behavior
(1951). Cited in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion, p. 41 (1965).
33. Sommer, V., Wider die Natur?: Homosexualität und Evolution. (1990).
34. Robert H. Hopcke, Jung, Jungians & Homosexuality (1989).
35. Driver, H. E., Indians of North America (1961). Cited in Marmor (ed.), Sexual
Inversion, p. 111 (1965).
36. Margaret Mead, Cultural determinants of sexual behavior in
W. C. Young (ed.), Sex and internal secretions, vol. 2 (3rd ed.), pp. 1433-1479 (1961).
37. Gordon Rattray Taylor, Historical and Mythological Aspects of Homosexuality
in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion, p. 153 (1965).
38. Irving Bieber et al., Homosexuality – a psychoanalytic study of male
homosexuals (1962), p. 198.
39. Liam Hudson & Bernadine Jacot, The Way Men Think (1991).
40. Anthony Storr, Sexual Deviation, p. 86 (1964).
41. West, D. J., Vad är homosexualitet?, p. 128 (1967).
42. Marie-Louise von Franz, The Problem of the Puer Aeternus, (2000).
43. Rivkah Schärf Kluger, The Archetypal Significance of Gilgamesh, pp. 66-68
(1991).
44. Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness (1954).
45. Anthony Storr, Sexual Deviation, p. 85 (1964).
46. Lionel Ovesey, Homosexuality and Pseudohomosexuality (1969).
47. Warren Steinberg, Circle of Care (1990).
48. Lionel Ovesey, Homosexuality and Pseudohomosexuality, p. 64 (1969).
49. C. G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (CW 9), para. 159
(1969).
50. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg, On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality
(1986).
51. Irving Bieber, et al., Homosexuality – a psychoanalytic study of male
homosexuals (1962).
52. Robert Kronemeyer, Understanding Homosexuality (1985).
53. D. J. West, Parental Figures in the Genesis of Male Homosexuality. Int. J.
Soc. Psych. 5:85-97 (1959).
54. Gordon Westwood, A minority – A Report on the Life of the Male Homosexual in
Great Britain (1960).
55. Saghir & Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (1973).
56. Guy Corneau, Frånvarande Fäder, Förlorade Söner (1995).
57. W. Ralph Layland, Sökandet efter en kärleksfull far in
A. Samuels (ed.), Fadern (1990).
58. C. G. Jung, Two Essays, para. 173 (1966).
59. Anna Freud, Some clinical remarks concerning the treatment of male
homosexuality. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 30: 195 (1951).
60. Irving Bieber, et al., Homosexuality – a psychoanalytic study of male
homosexuals (1962).
61. Mayerson & Lief, Psychoterapy of Homosexuals in Marmor (ed.),
Sexual Inversion, p. 302 (1965).
62. Masters & Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (1979).
63. National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
64. Nicolosi, Byrd & Potts, Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual
Orientation (1997).
65. Robert Kronemeyer, Understanding homosexuality, p. 135 (1985).
66. Jolande Jacobi, A Case of Homosexuality, Journal of Analytical Psychology (Jan
1969).
67. Otto F. Kernberg, Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions (1992).
68. Marmor, J. (ed.), Sexual Inversion (1965).
List of books
Burr, C. (1996). A Separate Creation. New York: Hyperion.
Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Michigan: Baker Book House.
Burenhult, G. (1986). Speglingar av det förflutna. Höganäs: Bra Böcker.
Mead, M. (1961). Coming of age in Samoa. New York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks.
Mead, M. (1931). Growing Up in New Guinea. London: George Routledge and Son’s.
Mead, M. (1949). Male and Female. New York: William Morrow & Company.
Kronemeyer R. (1985). Understanding Homosexuality. New York: Coleman Publishing.
Ford, C. S. & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Morris, D. (1971). Det Mänskliga Menageriet. Stockholm: Pan/Norstedts.
de Waal, F. & Lanting, F. (1997). Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. University of California Press.
Ford, C. S. & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Sommer, V. (1990). Wider die Natur?: Homosexualität und Evolution. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Hopcke, R. H. (1989). Jung, Jungians & Homosexuality. Boston, Shaftesbury: Shambhala.
Driver, H. E. (1961). Indians of North America. University of Chicago Press.
Bieber, I. et al. (1962). Homosexuality – a psychoanalytic study of male homosexuals.
New York, Toronto: Vintage Books.
Hudson, L. & Jacot, B. (1991). The Way Men Think. Yale University Press.
Storr, A. (1964). Sexual Deviation. Pelican Books.
West, D. J. (1967). Vad är homosexualitet? Stockholm: Prisma.
von Franz, M-L, (2000). Puer Aeternus. Toronto: Inner City Books.
Schärf Kluger, R. (1991). The Archetypal Significance of Gilgamesh. Einsiedeln: Daimon Verlag.
Neumann, E. (1954). The Origins and History of Consciousness. Princeton/Bollingen.
Ovesey, L. (1969). Homosexuality and Pseudohomosexuality. New York: Science House.
Steinberg, W. (1990). Circle of Care. Toronto: Inner City Books.
Jung, C. G. (1954). The Development of Personality (CW 17). Princeton/Bollingen.
Jung, C. G. (1969). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (CW 9). Princeton/Bollingen.
Jung, C. G. (1966). Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. (CW 7). Princeton/Bollingen.
van den Aardweg, G. J. M., (1986). On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Westwood, G. (1960). A minority – A Report on the Life of the Male Homosexual in Great Britain. London:
Longmans, Green and Co.
Saghir, M. T. & Robins, E. (1973). Male and Female Homosexuality. Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins Co.
Corneau, G. (1995). Frånvarande Fäder, Förlorade Söner. Solna: CJP.
Samuels, A. (ed.). Fadern. Alfabeta Bokförlag.
Masters & Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (1979). Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Marmor, J. (ed.) (1965). Sexual Inversion. New York, London: Basic Books.
Francoeur, R. T. (red.) (1997). The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. New York: Continuum.
Bullough, V. L. (1994). Science in the Bedroom. New York: Basic Books.
LeVay, S. (1993). The Sexual Brain. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Kernberg, O. F. (1992). Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions. Yale University Press.
List of articles
LeVay, S. (1991). A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Homosexual and Heterosexual Men. Science
253:1034-1037.
Hamer, D. H.; Hu, S.; Magnuson, V. L.; Hu, N.; Pattatucci, A. M. L
(1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261:
321-327.
Horgan, J. (1995). Gay Genes Revisited. Scientific American, Nov. 1995:26.
Sterr, A.; Müller M.; Elbert T.; Rockstroh B.; Pantev C.; Taub E. (1998), Changed
perceptions in Braille readers. Nature 391: 134-135.
King, M. & McDonald, E. (1992), Homosexuals who are Twins. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
vol. 160, March 1992, pp. 407-409.
Bailey J.; Pillard R. (1991), A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation. Archives of General Psychology 48:
1089-1096.
Risch N.; Squires-Wheeler, E.; Keats, B. (1993), Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence. Science
262: 2063-65.
Kallman, F. J. A. (1952). A comparative twin study on the genetic aspects of male homosexuality.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 115: pp. 283-298.
Pare, C. M. B. (1965). Etiology of Homosexuality: Genetic and Chromosomal Aspects
in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion. New York, London: Basic Books.
Marmor, J. (1965). Introduction in Marmor (ed.). Sexual Inversion. New York, London: Basic
Books.
Perloff, W. H. (1965). Hormones and Homosexuality in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion. New
York, London: Basic Books.
Williams, T. J., et al. (2000). Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature 404,
pp. 455-456.
Hampson, J. L. (1965). Determinants of Psychosexual Orientation in
F. A. Beach (ed.), Sex & Behavior. New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley & Sons.
Mead, M. (1961). Cultural determinants of sexual behavior in Sex and internal secretions,
vol. 2 (3rd ed.) W. C. Young (ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Davenport, W. (1965). Sexual patterns and their regulation in a society of the southwest pacific
in Sex & Behavior, pp. 202-203, F. A. Beach (ed.). New York, London,
Sydney: John Wiley & Sons.
Opler, M. K. (1965). Anthropological and Cross-Cultural Aspects of Homosexuality in
Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion. New York, London: Basic Books.
Denniston, R. H. (1965). Ambisexuality in Animals in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion. New
York, London: Basic Books.
de Waal, F. (1995). Bonobo Sex and Society in Scientific American, March 1995,
pp. 82-88.
Taylor, G. R. (1965). Historical and Mythological Aspects of Homosexuality in Marmor
(ed.), Sexual Inversion. New York, London: Basic Books.
West, D. J. (1959). Parental Figures in the Genesis of Male Homosexuality. International Journal of
Social Psychology 5:85-97.
Layland, W. R. (1990). Sökandet efter en kärleksfull far in A. Samuels (ed.),
Fadern. Alfabeta Bokförlag.
Freud, A. (1951). Some clinical remarks concerning the treatment of male homosexuality. The International
Journal of Psychoanalysis 30: 195.
Mayerson & Lief (1965). Psychoterapy of Homosexuals in Marmor (ed.), Sexual Inversion. New
York, London: Basic Books.
Nicolosi, Byrd & Potts (1997). Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation.
Psychological Reports 86, 1071-1088.
Jacobi, J. (1969). A Case of Homosexuality. Journal of Analytical Psychology 14:48-64. (Jan 1969).
