Gender and sex have both received considerable study by the sociological discipline. However, the notion of "sexuality" has been somewhat neglected bysociological study prior to the 1960's. Well accepted existing theories provided by sociobiologists on sexuality, are now being criticised by sociological theorists who argue such "biologically based theories are flawed with essentialism"(Abercrombie et al. 2000: 122). A marked debate has arisen over the past fifty years over which factors should be considered responsible as influences determining ones sexuality. With the sociological angle of study focused upon possible cultural and social influences, it has become apparent, through substantial and valid evidence, that the original essentialist theories of sexuality are somewhat insufficient. The following is a discussion of two approaches to explaining sexuality. One being the biologically inclined "essentialist theories" and the other being the socially inclined "social constructionist" theories. The discussion highlights the main elements of each approach, highlights the key differences between them and reflects on how each of the theories relate to human sexuality in traditional an modern times .
Essay.
The term sexuality, is described by The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology (Abercrombie et al. 2000:313) as "the mode by which sexual interests and sexual preferences are expressed". Sexuality is described by biologist David Buss, (Myers 2001) as the instinctive and innate behavioural tendencies that increase the likelyhood of sending ones genes into future offspring. Sexuality is not ones sex, which is simply ones physiological and anatomical characteristics of maleness or femaleness (Marieb 2001). Also, sexuality is not ones gender, which is the socially learned characteristics or roles of maleness or femaleness (Poole & Jureidini 2000). These such terms, sex and gender, imply the differences between men and women physiologically and characteristically.
