Abstract
The issue of same-gender sexual orientation became a subject of particular interest for psychoanalysis almost from the outset of Freud's study of mental life. The new scientific focus on the study of expression of gender sexual desire, including that between persons of the same gender, led to the medicalization of same gender sexual desire on humane grounds. The medicalization of sexuality has led the study of sexuality to be portrayed in medical conditions, stressing the presence or absence of a disease process (homosexual versus heterosexual). A major problem with the use of psychoanalytic theory as explication of a scientific world view, such as reflected in Freud's essay, stems from an experience distant focus on function and mechanism. There has been much confusion regarding the significance for clinical psychoanalysis of persons of the same rather than opposite gender who enjoy intimacy reflected in interpersonal attraction and sexual expression. Much of the discussion of sexual orientation within psychoanalysis has presumed necessary psychopathology founded on the assumption that, at best, same gendered sexual expression reflects psychological immaturity. Discussion of homosexuality in the psychoanalytic literature, particularly since the Second World War, has been concerned principally with concern for finding a “cause” for homosexuality in some aspect of early childhood. This paper argues that a proper focus of study of sexual orientation within psychoanalysis and the human sciences must attend to the meanings of lived experience as gay or straight across the course of life for the present life-story and sense of personal integrity and vitality. While the meaning of sexual orientation is always significant as a part of the psychoanalytic process, sexual orientation in itself is independent of psychopathology or present adjustment and should not be relevant as a factor in evaluating change in psychoanalysis.
Key Words: