Demystifying Sexuality: Scientific Insights and Personal Experiences

Sexuality is perhaps one of the most divided topics in our contemporary world. Conflicts surrounding the topic at the micro-level (within the self, between the self and the surrounding) to the macro-level (between groups of people) can be seen in many different parts of the world. Such conflicts emerge perhaps because sexuality touches upon the very fundamental means of human existence and what it means to be a person, especially in the context of dealing with oneself and with each other. At the macro-level, institutions such as countries, companies, and higher education institutions deal with the issue of sexuality in a variety of ways with varying degrees of openness (from the most open to the most repressed). Discussing sexuality or not discussing it deals directly or indirectly with the kinds of policies and socio-cultural practices one wish to adopt, interlinked with the values and belief systems we bring in to the conversation.

Without making any particular reference to any author or any source extensively, what I write below is based on a series of readings (i.e., reflections) of theoretical and scientific revelations, coupled with personal experiences and profound interest in understanding something more deeply - beyond prejudices and normative assumptions. Everyone is responsible for seeking their own revelations. Because of the various value judgments associated with sexuality and how it has been portrayed in the public space, it can become too easy to place ourselves in a defensive mode when it comes to the topic and cast prejudices upon those we don’t fundamentally agree with without careful examinations. It is to be noted that carefulness is part of virtue and it is wise to approach any issue with carefulness (i.e. gentleness). Overall, what I have found is that the nature of sexuality has been constructed rather differently across histories and places, including what is understood to be “right” and “wrong,” including whether or not religious scriptures actually speak about the topic, to what degree, and in what way - these have also been comprehended rather differently.

How did I get involved in this topic? As far as I can remember, I was exposed to this topic the first time when I was in high school. Then, for most of my adult life, I never really thought about it too much. Partly, it was fear of getting involved too much. Partly, it was discomfort of confronting the issue, especially as a Muslim whose main influence leaned more towards being conservative (though not ultra-conservative); it had been mostly a taboo in my upbringing and social surroundings. During my time in the US (2011-2015), I met this topic one way or another but I never really involved myself or got involved. It was not until I taught courses related to diversity, social science, and conflict management that I got exposed to the topic more directly. That is, I had to learn - or rather unlearn my own comprehension of the topic beyond the “normative” that had been implanted in me from the get-go. Then, something happened in my life where I experienced a whole new level of shock yet comprehension, specifically about the topic. With studies and insights more available through the internet (e.g., academic journal articles and other reliable summary articles), my own personal journey, and my analytical backgrounds trained partly during my PhD (compared to relying on unquestioned, uncalibrated, beliefs), I feel more realistically empowered. To clarify, I do not question my faith, but I question the dominant interpretations of normative bases when it comes to the topic. It is faith that drives the questions. To me, given that they operate rather independently (i.e., not influencing each other for their revelations), religious-spiritual messages and scientific insights should fundamentally be in harmony. When contrasts seem to occur, the solution lies in the interpretations - and such a process of comprehension through questioned interpretations is understandably dynamic.

Before continuing reading, you are cautioned that the things that are explained or expressed below can be shocking and uncomfortable, especially if you are not used to dealing with sensitive topics such as this and especially if you have your own pre-judgments about the issue. You understand your own pace and comfort level - don’t push yourself if it feels too much. Nevertheless, I invite you to read through if you are ready. What I write is based on my own journey of reflecting on scientific insights and my personal experiences. While objectivity or impartiality is attempted throughout my writing, I of course am a human being as a subjective being. If there is anything I promote, it is deeper and responsible understanding.

Fundamental Theoretical and Scientific Insights

What is sexuality (or usually called a “sexual orientation”)? In a broader sense, it is the nature of one’s sexual tendencies, especially in relation to the other sexual beings in the society of such beings. When discussing human sexuality, such beings are consequently and predominantly human beings. Sexual tendencies include thoughts (what I think and imagine), emotions (what I feel), motivations (what I aspire to be or do) , value judgments (what I regard as right and wrong), behaviors (what I do or don’t do), and/or attitudes (what I like or dislike) in the context of relations among humans as sexual beings. The nature of relations can vary, from the most committed ones (such as what we understand to be “marriage,” “engagement”) to the most uncommitted ones (such as what we understand to be “one-night stand,” “casual meet-ups,” and the likes) and the in-betweens (such as what we know to be “friendship,” “non-marital coupling”).

Embedded in sexuality is the notion of “sex” attached to a person as a fundamental personal (biological) characteristic. Usually, sex is mainly represented by what is called a “male” and a “female,” with their respective characteristics. Nevertheless, there are people that are somehow in-between (note that we are still talking about - biological - sex), which are called “intersex.” It signifies a sex category that does not conform to the “male” or “female” characteristics entirely (one explanation). It is entirely biological, not based on one’s psychological understanding. This biological reality, while found in many people, is not a widely known fact. Because of this, sex categories in many countries are simply males and females, with the “in-between” at times having to face socio-cultural impacts, such as not being recognized - for something they cannot choose before birth.

I argue that friendship can be “sexual” in nature, not necessarily because one wants to have a sexual relation with a friend, but simply because of the existence of a degree of awareness when it comes to the sex of the other person and its impacts. For example, a female person, being aware of the maleness of her friend and finds comfort in the reality of his maleness without being worried about any sexual advances done, befriends this person and feels that there will no need to be something “sexual” between them - subconsciously or consciously. Another example, a male person befriends another male because of the awareness of the fact that the person is a male and finds comfort in the fact that they are both males, with a degree of similar experiences. These considerations - I argue - are by nature sexual in the sense that “sex” awareness, among others, is part of the decision making process.

In a socio-cultural context, “sex” is also associated with “gender,” which emphasizes socio-cultural roles, ranging from “masculine” to “feminine” roles. Masculine roles emphasize characteristics such as leading, dominating, providing, controlling, protecting, or any others that signify strength (which at times is associated with dominance, for better or worse), while feminine roles emphasize characteristics such as receiving, accepting, welcoming, accommodating, being sensitive, or any others that signify vulnerability (which at times is associated with weakness, for better or worse). While it is usually thought that a “male” sex is a masculine figure, a “female” sex also has a masculine quality, such as the womb (which in Arabic is ar-raheem, which is a masculine word - and it does have a function to protect). On the other hand, we all know that a “male” sex also has sensitive (feminine) parts.

In societies where sex and gender extremely overlap and are not distinguished - where gender becomes an exclusive extension of sex, we may find that social roles for a male figure and a female figure are largely distinguished and those in-between may be “forced” to conform to one of the sexes; whereas in societies where sex and gender do not overlap at all - where sex and gender are regarded as two different things, there is no meaningful distinction with regard to the social roles attached to all the available sexes. Many societies contain a mix of these two ideals, where we find people who are called a “man” (or men, plural) and those who are called a “woman” (or women, plural). Some societies acknowledge other gender forms, such as in an Indonesian ethnic group where there are five genders. It is worth noting that religious scriptures typically refer to people or mankind as “men” with inclusive meaning to connote all people regardless of genders - even though some (partriarchal) societies interpret this as referring to “male figures,” while excluding the “non-men.” All in all, in our contemporary world (in practice), sex and gender are often times used rather interchangeably - note that “gender” needs its own discussion, as the focus of this article is on sexuality.

With all the interplay between sex and gender, including the impacts of biological nature, psychological nature, sociological nature, ideological nature (to say the least), we will see a diversity of people, where sexuality becomes a central governing mechanism of relations among them or us. That is, studies have generally established that one’s sexuality is affected by a complex set of interplays among multiple aspects. By this, it means that sexuality or sexual orientation (consciously or subconsciously) entails who we are attracted to “engage” with (referring to the thoughts, emotions, behaviors, motivations, and so on). By nature, we as people will be attracted to a combination of those who are similar to us (i.e., the similarity principle) and those who complement us (i.e., the complementarity principle). Now, we just need to imagine, figure out, or theorize how these natural principles play out in the context of sexuality. We will see a great number of variations of human relations linked to sexuality, as it involves multiple aspects - from thoughts to value judgments.

In summary, is sexuality a product of nature, nurture, or a choice? As explained above, sexuality as a characteristic of human life (like in practically all characteristics) is a result of many factors and it keeps evolving: biological and psychological nature and exposure to a variety of socio-cultural backgrounds and normative stances. It can be reflected in the thoughts, emotions, motivations, value judgments, behaviors, and attitudes - to say the least - and these aspects are not necessarily consistent with each other. Overall, one’s sexuality is a combination of the “natural,” the “nurtured,” and the “choice” we have as people in terms of how our sexuality is to be expressed either inwardly (intrapersonally, or within themselves or ourwardly (interpersonally, socially, or culturally, or between them and others or to the public at large). Because what is expected by the internal (i.e., what one feels) and by the external (i.e., social expectations) can differ, at times people find themselves having to struggle to make these two competing forces be consistent with each other. At times, it is the external that is dominant; at times, it is the internal. Beliefs usually embody an intersection between our own internal conviction and the validation one receives from the external world.

Implications of Nature of Sexuality to Human Relations

Without having to go further or be too detailed, say in the context of social engagements, we know that males tend to want to be with other males while females tend to want to be with other females. A portion of the population would of course violate this principle, as in what science would predict. In this way, some forms of same-sex social relations can be easily predicted or witnessed, whatever the engaged activities are - and such activities can simply be hanging out together, discussing matters from the most mundane to the most sensitive, joking around, and so on. Such activities can also be quite intimate and the level and form of intimacy can vary - in any case, consent is usually needed - it ensures the comfort level of and for those engaged in the activities. Similarity of sex provides both benefits and risks that difference of sex cannot provide. Likewise, complementarity of sex provides both benefits and risks that similarity of sex cannot provide. The kinds of “benefits” and “risks” can largely vary among various relational arrangements. While there can be overarching benefits, such as the degree of public acceptance or the likelihood of having own children (in the context of opposite sex coupling), and risks, such benefits and risks are largely contextual, on a case-by-case basis.

By the above understanding, now we get to analyze, reflect on, and question the various labels that are usually assigned to human sexuality, such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, or asexuality (to say the least). Are these labels useful? Or are they misleading? Let us take an example of “heterosexuality,” which is usually defined simply as an attraction towards the opposite sex. In the context of males, this means an attraction towards females. Does this mean that the heteosexual males are attracted to all females? By attraction, does it means attraction to stay together or to be closer, or to spend time with? Many other questions can be asked. Overall, like any other labels, they can be useful but they can be misleading too. It is worth noting that these sexuality labels that signify one’s identity are a rather recent phenomenon. This means that such labels are invented by people, for better or worse.

How are they useful? First, they are useful in the context of mating or finding a mate or a partner. If a person is attracted to an opposite sex who happens to be attracted to a same-sex, the person may not continue the pursuit of that attraction. In other words, labels can foster more efficient decision making. Second, labels usually make people more certain, especially when we know that there are others who are within the same “label.” Holding or embracing a particular sexual identity can feel empowering to many. In essence, such labels provide a sense of identity. A sexual identity can also regarded as part of one’s cultural identity in the sense that it projects values or belief systems of a person that are shared with those with the same identity. Sexuality labels, like any other labels, provide simplicity to the otherwise complex phenomena.

But how are they misleading? The most clear answer is that they fail to capture the complexity of human sexual experiences, which at least include thoughts, emotions, motivations, value judgments, attitudes, and behaviors. In reality, these different aspects do not necessarily align with each other. Studies have found that males / men who regard themselves to be heterosexual or “straight” (i.e., thoughts) often engage in male-to-male activities that are sexual in nature (i.e., behaviors) - google up and you’ll find various studies. The reasons include curiosity, taste of experience, deep-seated (unfulfilled) need, bonding, different type and level of pleasure, easiness, or emotional efficiency (the benefit of not having to be emotionally attached) - plus, as a male person, there is a degree of understanding of another male person. The presence of male-only places, including male bathhouses or saunas (like the Turkish Hamams, one academic article), highlight the nature of males or men not widely exposed but nonetheless widely existing in various places and various historical periods. They have been commonplace even under some religiously inspired rulers (see an academic article). Alexander the Great had a male friend or buddy whose relationship with him was very intimate, but without the need to label the relationship as “homosexual” (one source). The Arabic term “habibi” means both “friend” and “lover,” highlighting that loving a person (i.e., emotions) - regardless of person’s gender - is a natural aspect of human living. Overall, one can be deeply intimate with someone without the unnecessary label(s) attached to the experiences. A person who is attracted to a person of any sex-gender may end up marrying only an opposite sex because of the person’s belief (i.e., value judgments), for example. And how do we call someone who admires a person of the same sex very deeply? Overall, labels do not really serve these experiences holistically and our public understanding of sexuality now is also fundamentally different from how it had been construed in various historical timelines.

Overall, like in any other labeling, sexuality-related labels are useful but only to a degree and potentially only within a particular timeframe, as our experiences evolve. Some people like to put a label on their sexuality, some people don’t and don’t find it relevant to their identity.

Normative Stances on Human Sexuality and My Own Evaluation

Heteronormative societies are societies that predominantly believe that two people who wish to mate, be engaged, or get married need to consist of people who are opposite sexes and I am generally living in such a society. Such an arrangement is what is considered “normal” (i.e., normative). This “normal” state becomes the moral foundation held by the society I’m living in, determining what is “right” and what is “wrong.” This moral principle is, I argue, influenced by a particular interpretation of a religious text and history that point to the prohibition of same-sex (presumably sexual) relations and it is rooted in religious conservatism, which promotes social stability and patriarchal mindset, which sees things from a dominantly male-masculine point of view. This type of thinking also exists in many societies in the world, including the United States and parts of Europe. Wishing to create social stability is an overall important value, but it does not cover all existing human values.

Without necessarily promoting any particular position (for or against a particular stance on human sexuality), my own reading of such a religious text and relevant histories (see this academic journal article, for example) point me to loopholes of such a dominant interpretation and to the understanding that there is actually no explicit promotion or prohibition of a particular form of sexuality. This entails that contexts are important nuances to the evaluation of acceptability of certain forms of sexuality, where consent and respect are important principles to uphold. In the context of ethics, both deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics can play a role. This understanding makes more sense to me in the light of scientific discoveries when it comes to sexuality I’ve tried to lay out above.

The often-used religious text that has been thought - within my religious tradition - to prohibit a certain inclination of sexuality, in my comprehension, has nothing to do with sexuality at all but with the way we treat each other; and the mis-reading (I argue) is partly due to the confusion between what are called “men-women” and “masculinity-femininity.” Given that the Divine speaks to all people (not to a particular sexual category or gender), the text “why going to ‘men,’ but not ‘women’?” would rather read “why going ‘masculine,’ not ‘feminine’?” Understanding the knowledge of gender use in linguistics, I understand this phrase to mean “why acting aggresively towards people, not welcoming them?.” This makes more sense and it is in line with basic virtues as people. Nevertheless, if people have a different ideological position or comprehension from me, it should generally be seen as part of a natural human process. Nevertheless, the above is my own understanding, which may be dynamic going forward.

What is the “normal” sexuality? Like in all other contexts, what is “normal” is subject to human co-construction or social construction of reality. This means that people and societies will continue defining and redefining what is “normal.” Also, what is considered “normal” sociologically may not be “normal” psychologically and vice versa; and what is “normal” does not necessarily mean “good” (constructive) or “bad” (destructive). Especially in the context of sexuality, it shall evolve as times go by and societies are replaced with others. In our contemporary world, especially in some places, it is seen as an important aspect of one’s identity. Not only that it is seen as functional to the individuals involved, but it also helps in ensuring mating consistency. That is, for example, a female’s sexuality and a male’s sexuality in a relationship needs to match (among other things) in order for the mating to work out well. Nevertheless, as pointed out by some of my students, the notion of sexuality may not be relevant in certain contexts in the sense that human relations are not necessarily governed by sexuality or sexual identity, but by other aspects such as religious identity or ethnic identity. This means that, in some societies, one’s sexuality is more hidden and less prioritized to impact choices on human relations. And here lie potential struggles involving different aspects of an individual.

Do I support same-sex (romantic) relations or marriages? I tend to think that this question generally creates divisiveness and ignores the complexity of sexuality as I have understood it and as I have laid out before. Of course, on the one hand. a more conservative society tends to want to preserve a particular norm that has been believed to be “true” or “good.” This means in most cases that romantic relations or marriages, along with their extensions, need to involve those with opposite sexes - even though this principle (for example) leaves out or ignores the existence of intersex people. Nevertheless, this rather conservative ideal, I think to a certain degree, needs to be respected. On the other hand, I do not think that it is my place to say whether I support or not support same-sex relations or marriages, in the same way that I cannot say I support or not support heterosexual relations or marriages. To me, it is something that should be left to the people who wish to engage in such a communion or companionship based on what they believe, provided that they do it consciously. The tricky part is when we are someone holding a position that can impact policies at a larger level. People’s ideological backgrounds may clash. The higher virtue, to me, is inclusivity. This means that I regard this world to be divinely provided and I should ensure that everyone’s right to practice their belief is protected regardless of how clashing people’s beliefs are with each other. To me, this is truth and peace combined. Every person deserves a place on this earth and then we go from here in the context of policy making.

Further, framing the discussion as supporting or against a particular movement of sexuality (e.g., LGBTQI+) is overall unhelpful in creating a bridge between the “two sides” - it is helpful to create confrontations (with some seeing confrontations as a good thing, especially as a form of defense). Not long ago, people of two different religious ideologies refused to stay in one place because their fundamentally differing ideologies (even now, still) - but after a while, they were able to accept each other’s difference. A compromised solution means that one can hold on to their belief (e.g., about sexuality) without having to invalidate the existence of another person’s belief just to please or validate our belief. Usually, it is our nature to feel uncomfortable being confronted with another person’s belief and the topic of “sexuality” is one major divider among people. Perhaps, what is helpful is to refrain from throwing contents in an excessively confrontational way to the other side and to respect people’s way of life, giving each other space to productively contribute to the society.

Practically speaking, this may be rather tough as - again - we deal with a variety of people’s conceptions or preconceptions of sexuality and normative stances we hold dear. In an organizational setting, which would have its own value judgment or principle, it depends so much on the value judgment or principle that people in power hold. In certain organizations, policies are made very explicitly to ensure that varieties of sexual identity can be accommodated. The rationale behind this is to ensure that the people of all shades of sexuality are and feel welcome in the workplace. Regardless of whether people disclose the sexuality or sexual identity, everyone is expected to feel respected. Nevertheless, the same rationale - to respect each other - may yield different policies. Disclosing one’s sexuality or sexual identity can be met with discomfort and can be a sign of disrespect towards other people’s sexuality. This is similar to the ethics of displaying one’s religious identity in the workplace (one example).

In my professional experience, I have come across at least two examples that can be linked to the issue of sexuality and gender that can somehow be refreshing to note, since these two examples have some religious connections. First, in a presentation by a colleague from a university in a southern part area of the Philippines, where the majority of people are Muslims, he mentioned about his university’s initiative to ensure that people from minorities, including sexual minorities (i.e., people whose sexual identities differ from the majority), are being protected so that they feel accepted. Second, one of the applicants of the doctoral program from Afghanistan (who is also a Muslim) that I interviewed proposed a project with the aim to ensure that those with transgender identities receive equitable treatments when it came to career opportunities. These examples, I argue, show that our religious opinion or attitude regarding the issue of sexuality may not necessarily or fundamentally come from religious scripture itself, but from our backgrounds where the dominant religious interpretations tell us one thing without exposure to alternative interpretations.

Unlearning and Comprehending My Sexuality

I am a married person, to a female person or a woman, whom I’ve loved dearly. Throughout our marriage, our love has come under various challenges and obstacles. As a result, the love we have for each other has evolved and I believe it shall keep evolving, regardless of whether we “stay together” or not. Spiritually, her existence collides with mine. To a certain extent, this arrangement can be said to be heterosexual, characterized by the opposite-sex relational arrangement and there’s countless blessing as a result. But if I call myself a “heterosexual” (which I used to call myself exclusively) as a form of sexual identity, it reduces the various aspects of me that cannot be captured by the label. Here are several reasons:

1. During my marriage, I do not “chase” other females or women. If I called myself “heterosexual” (i.e., liking females or women, as a plural), naturally there would be a part of me that would want to go after other females or women. It would be in my identity to ”crave” for them. Nevertheless, like in many other cases, I can be said to be in “heterosexual” relations but only in the context of friendship or acquaintance. This means, to me, that I do not engage in relations that have characteristics similar to my relation with my spouse - even though I can find the females I meet to be attractive. It is a conscious decision I’ve made regarding my relational arrangements with other females.

2. Before my marriage, there were several females that I was attracted to. Upon my reflection, the females (including my spouse) have a commonality in their characteristics in that they tend to exhibit a more masculine energy. They can be dominating and are socially active. They tend to be relatively sporty, compared to other females, and are bonded with many male friends. This is similar to the female figures I used to play in video games, such as Xena the Warrior Princes and Sonya Blade from Mortal Combat. Interestingly, my mother and my mother-in-law are or were rather sporty or into sports. This highlights the sex-gender connection, where masculine characteristics seem to be something I have been attracted to in females or women.

3. Male-to-male bonding, I’ve just realized as a mid-life adult, is a very important aspect in my life - whatever the nature and the length of that bonding is. Without having to go too detailed, that nature of the bonding can range from the most physical (i.e., involving touches) to the most spiritual (i.e., reflecting on life), or a combination, and in-between, including the intellectual (i.e., discussing and debating issues) and the sentimental (i.e., sharing love, affection, or silliness). Whatever the reason behind this and when done consciously, reciprocally, and responsibly, it provides a liberating and fulfilling experience and nurtures a healthier spirit in me. Some of the male figures or men I’ve been in touch with are long-term buddies whom I meet once in a while and some are “random” figures that signify meaningful encounters. I believe that these men have come to my life for a reason. They are important figures who enrich my maleness. While I am not the type of male person who usually hangs out with several or many male friends or colleagues, male-to-male bonding is still very important to me and the nature of the bonding is usually one-on-one.

4. Just like I can spot places in nature (e.g., mountains, rocks, rivers, skies) that I find attractive, I can find people of all shades to be attractive. For God’s sake, everything can be pretty, beautiful, or handsome. But I can choose to engage with or pursue such attractions or not. To me, attractiveness can range from their physicality, personality, or anything I cannot really tell exactly. It is just something that “hits” you. I can simply adore their beauty from far away and be grateful for witnessing such beauty. But perhaps because I tend to be introverted, I do not necessarily say what I see or how I feel. Being confronted with such attractions, regardless of the sex-gender of the people, naturally I can feel nervous. As an adult, generally I am able to regulate such emotions when attractions emerge.

5. I’ve enjoyed being close to some female friends or colleagues. From kindergarten to elementary school, to high school, to college, I’ve always had a female best friend whom I share feelings to. It has always been comforting to have a female best friend.

6. I’ve found myself to be rather “typical” when it comes being the male side of the “heterosexual” relationship. That is, I am not particularly dominant in paying attention to household issues or meals for the children. I have been secondary to my spouse in this regard. Plus, I am not naturally into shopping. I also learned about having a sense of style from my spouse, but it is not natural in me. Overall, I’ve found myself to be “just like many guys” in these types of situation.

Because of the above aspects to say the least, I do not find it necessary to label myself sexually, but I respect others who do - I understand the general rationale. To me, sexuality signifies a set of intra- and interpersonal experiences when it comes to me as a sexual being. It is safe to say that I have a rather non-denominational sense of sexuality, which grows and evolves as time goes by as a way to enjoy life nuances. I simply accept my nature of sexuality and its evolution.

To close, everyone’s calling is different and it may evolve from time to time, and respect is of the utmost importance. If you wish me to delve into any particular aspect of the topic, feel free to let me know.

Finalized on September 7, 2024