G. Summary: The Sex-Script Hypothesis Replaces Older
Theories.
If the sex-script hypothesis survives analysis
and criticism,
older theories of sexual response would be replaced in the following
ways:
Both nature and nurture would be displaced as
explanations of sexuality.
Instead of studying the sexuality of other animals for clues to human
sexuality,
we would examine childhood imprinting events to understand our
fantasies.
And instead of focusing on ordinary forms of human learning,
we would explore psychological imprinting that is sudden and permanent
—like the imprinting of male/female self-designation (I am a boy. / I
am a girl.),
the imprinting of our visual cortex, our handedness,
and—most important—the imprinting of our native languages.
In the past, the control of human sexuality
has been mainly a moral matter.
Most theories assumed that sexual responses were the result of choice.
Thus, the main effort to get rid of unwanted sexual behavior
was focused on re-education and moral exhortation.
However, if our sexual responses were imprinted into us at random,
then we are not morally responsible for how we feel sexually.
(However, we are always responsible for how we behave sexually.)
Also, if our responses were not learned from society
and our peers,
then there is no process by which we could change our imprinted
responses.
Everything that we have learned since birth can be unlearned.
But the sex-script hypothesis suggests that our sexual responses are
permanent.
If so, we will have to seek ways to cope with our given sexual
responses
rather than trying to change them,
just as we learn to cope with our given right-handedness or
left-handedness
or with the fact that we were imprinted with one particular native
language.
When older theories of human sexuality pointed
to society as the source,
we assumed that changes in the ways we brought up our children
would give them different sexual responses
—just as we can teach them how to behave in school and (later) on the
job.
But if our sexual fantasies are imprinted more or less at random,
parents cannot create ‘desirable’ sexual imprinting.
For example, promoting athletic activities to make boys more
‘masculine’
will have no impact on their sexual orientations.
We can teach our children how to play baseball, basketball, or football,
but we cannot enculturate a particular set of sexual responses.
We can teach our children all about dating, sexual behavior, &
marriage,
but none of this will change the sexual imprinting they receive at
random.
If the sex-script hypothesis is substantially
correct,
it could revolutionize future thinking about human sexuality.
The rest of this book explores the implications of imprinted sexual
fantasies.
16 IMPRINTED SEXUAL
FANTASIES: A NEW KEY FOR
SEXOLOGY by JAMES PARK
The page above is the last page of Chapter I from Imprinted Sexual Fantasies
by James Park.
This link leads to the table of contents,
from which you can read the rest of this chapter.
Page number appears at the bottom of this page—with
the footer.