Misconceptions promote confusion: author's response to book review. (Letter to the Editor).

With dismay I read Daryl Bem's review of my book, True Nature ("Is Half an Interactional Theory Still an Interactional Theory," volume 38, number 3, August, 2001). The review contains several misconceptions, including the book's main points.

One unique contribution of my book is an evolutionary explanation of the adaptive function of same-sex eroticism, to which Bem gives little attention. Contrary to his assertion, I never claim that same- and other-sex erotic attraction are "equivalent." The passage that Bem quotes refers to exclusive sexual attraction (p. 186). I contend that same- and other-sex erotic attraction are heterozygous traits of different alleles of multiple genes that are possessed by most people (p. 184). Other-sex eroticism is likely associated with a dominant allele, although heterozygosity is the optimal reproductive mix.

Most of Bem's review focuses on the proximate causal section and attributes to me an environmental explanation of attraction. Rather, I describe a complex developmental process from genes, to hormones, to neural pathways, to social information processing filtered by culture, to eroticism and, finally, to sexual attraction (pp. 186-198). I argue that most people have the capacity for attraction to both sexes, but the form of relationships depends upon cultural context. What Bem views as "banal cross-cultural observations" illustrate the variety of erotic/sexual relationships in other cultures compared to our narrow Western heterosexual model. I explain that genetic variability leads to a subset of people having the capacity for sexual attraction to one sex. Exclusive attraction is more strongly, but not completely, influenced by biological factors, although the form of sexual relationships (even male-female relationships) is shaped by culture. The interface between biology and social environment is located in the information processing pathways of the brain. Contrary to Bem, I note several psychosocial variables that significantly influence development of same- and other-sex attractions: mating strategies, social and sexual experience, erotic templates, and cultural beliefs (pp. 194-206). What Bem fails to find is a mechanistic model of homosexuality. I offer a general theory of sexual attraction (p. 7). My main goal is to move away from theories that focus primarily on homosexuality (p. 5).

Bem also trivializes my criticism of conventional theories of attraction--and my criticism of his theory (pp. 158-160)--and claims that I offer "nothing in their place." Chapter 5 presents my theory, which avoids the recapitulation of Western gender roles and heterosexism inherent in many theories of attraction like Bem's. Finally, the "disquieting number of errors" that Bem refers to is quite small but regrettably mine. The genetic similarity of dizygotic twins, the reference to Nicolosi rather than Cameron, and the reference to "David" rather than Daryl Bem should have been corrected in editing. Bem is right that Nicolosi's reparative theory is based on psychoanalytic principles, but I view his therapeutic approach as largely behavioral (pp. 62-63). None of these represent conceptual errors in my theory of sexual attraction.

Critique moves science forward, but critique of misconceptions simply promotes confusion. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify these points.