When Was The Term Homosexuality First Used

The invention of 'heterosexuality'

1 hundred years ago, people had a very different idea of what it means to be heterosexual. Agreement that shift in thinking tin can tell us a lot nearly fluid sexual identities today, argues Brandon Ambrosino.

This story is featured in BBC Time to come'due south "Best of 2017" collection.Discover more of our picks.

The 1901 Dorland's Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality equally an "abnormal or perverted ambition toward the opposite sex." More than than 2 decades subsequently, in 1923, Merriam Webster's dictionary similarly defined it as "morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex." It wasn't until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning we're familiar with today: "manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality."

Whenever I tell this to people, they respond with dramatic incredulity. That tin't be right! Well, information technology certainly doesn't feel correct. It feels as if heterosexuality has e'er "just been in that location."

A few years agone, there began circulating a "homo on the street" video, in which the creator asked people if they thought homosexuals were built-in with their sexual orientations. Responses were varied, with near saying something like, "It'due south a combination of nature and nurture." The interviewer then asked a follow-up question, which was crucial to the experiment: "When did you choose to be straight?" Near were taken dorsum, confessing, rather sheepishly, never to have thought about information technology. Feeling that their prejudices had been exposed, they ended up swiftly conceding the videographer'due south obvious signal: gay people were born gay just like straight people were born straight.

The video's takeaway seemed to suggest that all of our sexualities are "merely there"; that we don't need an explanation for homosexuality only equally we don't need one for heterosexuality. It seems not to have occurred to those who made the video, or the millions who shared information technology, that nosotros actually need an caption for both.

While heterosexual sex is clearly as old as humanity, the concept of heterosexuality as an identity is a very recent invention (Credit: Getty Images)

In that location'due south been a lot of skillful piece of work, both scholarly and pop, on the social construction of homosexual want and identity. Every bit a result, few would bat an eye when at that place'southward talk of "the rise of the homosexual" – indeed, most of us have learned that homosexual identity did come into existence at a specific bespeak in human history. What nosotros're not taught, though, is that a similar phenomenon brought heterosexuality into its beingness.

There are many reasons for this educational omission, including religious bias and other types of homophobia. But the biggest reason we don't interrogate heterosexuality'south origins is probably considering it seems so, well, natural. Normal. No need to question something that'due south "simply at that place."

Only heterosexuality has not ever "merely been there." And there's no reason to imagine it will always be.

When heterosexuality was abnormal

The first rebuttal to the merits that heterosexuality was invented usually involves an appeal to reproduction: information technology seems obvious that different-genital intercourse has existed for as long as humans take been around – indeed, we wouldn't have survived this long without it. But this rebuttal assumes that heterosexuality is the same affair as reproductive intercourse. It isn't.

"Sex has no history," writes queer theorist David Halperin at the University of Michigan, because it'due south "grounded in the operation of the trunk." Sexuality, on the other hand, precisely because it'due south a "cultural production," does have a history. In other words, while sex is something that appears hardwired into near species, the naming and categorising of those acts, and those who practise those acts, is a historical phenomenon, and can and should be studied as such.

Or put another way: there take ever been sexual instincts throughout the animal world (sex activity). But at a specific indicate in time, humans attached significant to these instincts (sexuality). When humans talk most heterosexuality, we're talking about the second thing.

Hanne Blank offers a helpful way into this discussion in her volume Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality with an analogy from natural history. In 2007, the International Establish for Species Exploration listed the fish Electrolux addisoni as one of the yr'due south "top 10 new species." But of course, the species didn't suddenly spring into existence 10 years ago – that's merely when information technology was discovered and scientifically named. As Blank concludes: "Written documentation of a particular kind, by an authority effigy of a particular kind, was what turned Electrolux from a thing that just was … into a thing that was known."

Oscar Wilde's trial for 'gross indecency' is often considered a pivotal moment in the formation of the gay identity (Credit: Alamy)

Something remarkably similar happened with heterosexuals, who, at the end of the 19th Century, went from just being in that location to existence known. "Prior to 1868, there were no heterosexuals," writes Blank. Neither were there homosexuals. It hadn't yet occurred to humans that they might be "differentiated from one some other by the kinds of love or sexual want they experienced." Sexual behaviours, of course, were identified and catalogued, and oft times, forbidden. But the accent was always on the act, not the agent.

Then what changed? Linguistic communication.

In the tardily 1860s, Hungarian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny coined iv terms to describe sexual experiences: heterosexual, homosexual, and ii at present forgotten terms to describe masturbation and bestiality; namely, monosexual and heterogenit. Kertbeny used the term "heterosexual" a decade later when he was asked to write a book chapter arguing for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. The editor, Gustav Jager, decided non to publish it, merely he concluded up using Kertbeny's novel term in a book he later published in 1880.

The next fourth dimension the word was published was in 1889, when Austro-German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing included the word in Psychopathia Sexualis, a catalogue of sexual disorders. But in almost 500 pages, the word "heterosexual" is used simply 24 times, and isn't even indexed. That's considering Krafft-Ebing is more interested in "contrary sexual instinct" ("perversions") than "sexual instinct," the latter existence for him the "normal" sexual desire of humans.

"Normal" is a loaded word, of course, and it has been misused throughout history. Hierarchical ordering leading to slavery was at once accepted equally normal, every bit was a geocentric cosmology. It was only by questioning the foundations of the consensus view that "normal" phenomena were dethroned from their privileged positions.

For Krafft-Ebing, normal sexual want was situated within a larger context of procreative utility, an idea that was in keeping with the dominant sexual theories of the Due west. In the Western world, long earlier sex activity acts were separated into the categories hetero/homo, there was a different ruling binary: procreative or non-procreative. The Bible, for instance, condemns homosexual intercourse for the aforementioned reason information technology condemns masturbation: because life-begetting seed is spilled in the act. While this ethic was largely taught, maintained, and enforced by the Cosmic Church building and later Christian offshoots, it'southward important to annotation that the ethic comes non primarily from Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but from Stoicism.

Karl Maria Kertbeny created the label 'heterosexual" (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Equally Catholic ethicist Margaret Farley points out, Stoics "held strong views on the power of the human will to regulate emotion and on the desirability of such regulation for the sake of inner peace". Musonius Rufus, for example, argued in On Sexual Indulgence that individuals must protect themselves against self-indulgence, including sexual excess. To curb this sexual indulgence, notes theologian Todd Salzman, Rufus and other Stoics tried to situate it "in a larger context of human being significant" – arguing that sex could only be moral in the pursuit of procreation. Early Christian theologians took up this conjugal-reproductive ethic, and past the fourth dimension of Augustine, reproductive sex was the merely normal sexual practice.

While Krafft-Ebing takes this procreative sexual ethic for granted, he does open it up in a major mode. "In sexual beloved the real purpose of the instinct, the propagation of the species, does not enter into consciousness," he writes.

In other words, sexual instinct contains something similar a hard-wired reproductive aim – an aim that is present even if those engaged in 'normal' sex aren't aware of it. Jonathan Ned Katz, in The Invention of Heterosexuality, notes the impact of Krafft-Ebing's movement. "Placing the reproductive bated in the unconscious, Krafft-Ebing created a modest, obscure space in which a new pleasure norm began to grow."

The importance of this shift – from reproductive instinct to erotic desire – can't be overstated, as information technology's crucial to modern notions of sexuality. When nearly people today think of heterosexuality, they might think of something like this: Billy understands from a very young age he is erotically attracted to girls. One day he focuses that erotic free energy on Suzy, and he woos her. The pair autumn in dearest, and give physical sexual expression to their erotic desire. And they alive happily always after.

It was only at the turn of the 20th Century that thinkers began to divorce sexual desire (depicted here in Rodin's The Kiss) from reproduction (Credit: Alamy)

It was only at the turn of the 20th Century that thinkers began to divorce sexual desire (depicted hither in Rodin'south The Kiss) from reproduction (Credit: Alamy)

Without Krafft-Ebing'southward work, this narrative might not have always become thought of equally "normal." There is no mention, however implicit, of procreation. Defining normal sexual instinct according to erotic desire was a fundamental revolution in thinking about sexual activity. Krafft-Ebing's piece of work laid the groundwork for the cultural shift that happened between the 1923 definition of heterosexuality as "morbid" and its 1934 definition as "normal."

Sexual activity and the city

Ideas and words are often products of their time. That is certainly true of heterosexuality, which was borne out of a time when American life was becoming more than regularised. As Blank argues, the invention of heterosexuality corresponds with the rise of the eye class.

In the belatedly 19th Century, populations in European and North American cities began to explode. By 1900, for example, New York City had 3.four million residents – 56 times its population simply a century before. As people moved to urban centres, they brought their sexual perversions – prostitution, same-sexual practice eroticism – with them. Or so information technology seemed. "By comparing to rural towns and villages," Bare writes, "the cities seemed like hotbeds of sexual misconduct and excess." When city populations were smaller, says Blank, it was easier to control such behaviour, but equally information technology was easier to command when it took place in smaller, rural areas where neighbourly familiarity was a norm. Small-town gossip can exist a profound motivator.

Because the increasing public sensation of these sexual practices paralleled the influx of lower classes into cities, "urban sexual misconduct was typically, if inaccurately, blamed" on the working class and poor, says Blank. It was important for an emerging middle class to differentiate itself from such backlog. The bourgeois family unit needed a way to protect its members "from aristocratic decadence on the one side and the horrors of the teeming city on the other". This required "systematic, reproducible, universally applicable systems for social management that could be implemented on a large calibration".

In the past, these systems could be based on faith, merely "the new secular land required secular justification for its laws," says Bare. Enter sexual activity experts like Krafft-Ebing, who wrote in the introduction to his first edition of Psychopathia that his work was designed "to reduce [humans] to their lawful conditions." Indeed, continues the preface, the present study "exercises a beneficent influence upon legislation and jurisprudence".

The anonymity of city life in the 19th Century was often blamed for freer - and more 'immoral' - sexual behaviour (Credit: Alamy)

Krafft-Ebing's work chronicling sexual irregularity made it clear that the growing heart class could no longer treat deviation from normal (hetero) sexuality merely as sin, only as moral degeneracy – one of the worst labels a person could acquire. "Telephone call a man a 'cad' and you've settled his social status," wrote Williams James in 1895. "Phone call him a 'degenerate' and you've grouped him with the about loathsome specimens of the human race." Equally Blank points out, sexual degeneracy became a yardstick to determine a person's measure.

Degeneracy, later on all, was the reverse process of social Darwinism. If procreative sexual practice was critical to the continuous evolution of the species, deviating from that norm was a threat to the entire social material. Luckily, such divergence could exist reversed, if it was defenseless early enough, idea the experts.

The germination of "sexual inversion" occurred, for Krafft-Ebing, through several stages, and was curable in the first. Through his piece of work, writes Ralph M Leck, writer of Vita Sexualis, "Krafft-Ebing sent out a clarion phone call confronting degeneracy and perversion. All civic-minded people must take their turn on the social watch tower." And this was certainly a question of civics: most colonial personnel came from the eye grade, which was big and growing.

Though some non-professionals were familiar with Krafft-Ebing's work, information technology was Freud who gave the public scientific ways to think about sexuality. While it's difficult to reduce the physician's theories to a few sentences, his most indelible legacy is his psychosexual theory of development, which held that children develop their own sexualities via an elaborate psychological parental dance.

For Freud, heterosexuals weren't born this way, but made this mode. As Katz points out, heterosexuality for Freud was an achievement; those who attained it successfully navigated their childhood development without being thrown off the straight and narrow.

And all the same, as Katz notes, information technology takes an enormous imagination to frame this navigation in terms of normality:

According to Freud, the normal road to heterosexual normality is paved with the incestuous lust of boy and daughter for parent of the other sexual practice, with boy's and girl's desire to murder their same-sex activity parent-rival, and their wish to exterminate any piddling sibling-rivals. The road to heterosexuality is paved with claret-lusts… The invention of the heterosexual, in Freud'due south vision, is a deeply disturbed production.

That such an Oedipal vision endured for so long as the explanation for normal sexuality is "one more than grand irony of heterosexual history," he says.

Alfred Kinsey (centre) may have relaxed the taboo around sex, but his reports reaffirmed the existing categories of homosexual and heterosexual behaviour (Credit: Getty Images)

Alfred Kinsey (center) may have relaxed the taboo around sex, but his reports reaffirmed the existing categories of homosexual and heterosexual behaviour (Credit: Getty Images)

Still, Freud's explanation seemed to satisfy the bulk of the public, who, standing their obsession with standardising every aspect of life, happily accepted the new scientific discipline of normal. Such attitudes found further scientific justification in the work of Alfred Kinsey, whose landmark 1948 written report Sexual Behavior in the Human Male person sought to rate the sexuality of men on a scale of naught (exclusively heterosexual) to half-dozen (exclusively homosexual). His findings led him to conclude that a large, if non majority, "portion of the male population has at to the lowest degree some homosexual experience between adolescence and old age". While Kinsey's study did open up the categories homo/hetero to allow for a sure sexual continuum, it also "emphatically reaffirmed the idea of a sexuality divided between" the two poles, as Katz notes.

The future of heterosexuality

And those categories have lingered to this twenty-four hours. "No one knows exactly why heterosexuals and homosexuals ought to be unlike," wrote Wendell Ricketts, author of the 1984 study Biological Enquiry on Homosexuality. The best answer we've got is something of a tautology: "heterosexuals and homosexuals are considered unlike considering they can exist divided into two groups on the basis of the belief that they can exist divided into two groups."

Though the hetero/homo divide seems like an eternal, indestructible fact of nature, information technology simply isn't. It'south just one recent grammer humans take invented to talk almost what sex activity means to us.

Heterosexuality, argues Katz, "is invented within soapbox every bit that which is outside discourse. Information technology's manufactured in a particular discourse as that which is universal… as that which is outside time." That is, it's a construction, but it pretends it isn't. As whatsoever French philosopher or child with a Lego set volition tell you lot, anything that's been synthetic can exist deconstructed, also. If heterosexuality didn't exist in the past, then it doesn't need to exist in the future.

I was recently caught off baby-sit by Jane Ward, author of Non Gay, who, during an interview for a piece I wrote on sexual orientation, asked me to recall most the future of sexuality. "What would information technology mean to call back nigh people's capacity to cultivate their own sexual desires, in the aforementioned way we might cultivate a gustatory modality for food?" Though some might be wary of allowing for the possibility of sexual fluidity, it's important to realise that various Born This Style arguments aren't accepted by the most contempo scientific discipline. Researchers aren't certain what "causes" homosexuality, and they certainly turn down any theories that posit a simple origin, such as a "gay factor." It's my opinion that sexual desires, like all our desires, shift and re-orient throughout our lives, and that as they do, they often advise to us new identities. If this is true, and so Ward's suggestion that we tin cultivate sexual preferences seems fitting. (For more than of the scientific bear witness behind this argument, read BBC Futurity'southward 'I am gay – but I wasn't built-in this manner'.)

Beyond Ward'south question is a subtle challenge: If we're uncomfortable with considering whether and how much ability we have over our sexualities, why might that be? Similarly, why might we be uncomfortable with challenging the conventionalities that homosexuality, and by extension heterosexuality, are eternal truths of nature?

The writer James Baldwin balked at defining people as straight or gay, arguing that "it answers a false argument, a false accusation" (Credit: Alamy)

The writer James Baldwin balked at defining people every bit straight or gay, arguing that "information technology answers a fake argument, a faux accusation" (Credit: Alamy)

In an interview with the journalist Richard Goldstein, the novelist and playwright James Baldwin admitted to having proficient and bad fantasies of the future. One of the good ones was that "No one will have to telephone call themselves gay," a term Baldwin admits to having no patience for. "It answers a false statement, a false accusation."

Which is what?

"Which is that y'all have no right to exist here, that you accept to prove your right to exist hither. I'm maxim I have nothing to show. The world as well belongs to me."

Once upon a time, heterosexuality was necessary because modern humans needed to prove who they were and why they were, and they needed to defend their right to be where they were. Every bit time wears on, though, that characterization seems to actually limit the myriad means nosotros humans understand our desires and loves and fears. Perhaps that is one reason a recent UK poll institute that fewer than one-half of those aged 18-24 identify equally "100% heterosexual." That isn't to suggest a majority of those young respondents regularly practise bisexuality or homosexuality; rather it shows that they don't seem to have the aforementioned need for the word "heterosexual" every bit their 20th-Century forebears.

Debates about sexual orientation have tended to focus on a badly defined concept of "nature." Considering different sex intercourse generally results in the propagation of the species, we accolade it a special moral status. But "nature" doesn't reveal to u.s. our moral obligations – we are responsible for determining those, fifty-fifty when we aren't enlightened we're doing so. To bound from an ascertainment of how nature is to a prescription of nature ought to be is, as philosopher David Hume noted, to commit a logical fallacy.

As gay rights are increasingly recognised, many people also describe their sexual desires as lying on a spectrum (Credit: Alamy)

As gay rights are increasingly recognised, many people likewise describe their sexual desires as lying on a spectrum (Credit: Alamy)

Why estimate what is natural and ethical to a human being by his or her animal nature? Many of the things human beings value, such as medicine and art, are egregiously unnatural. At the same fourth dimension, humans detest many things that actually are eminently natural, similar illness and expiry. If nosotros consider some naturally occurring phenomena ethical and others unethical, that means our minds (the things looking) are determining what to make of nature (the things beingness looked at). Nature doesn't exist somewhere "out in that location," independently of us – we're ever already interpreting it from the inside.

Until this point in our Earth's history, the human species has been furthered by different-sex activity reproductive intercourse. About a century ago, we attached specific meanings to this kind of intercourse, partly considering we wanted to encourage information technology. Just our world is very different now than what information technology was. Technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are only improving. In 2013, more 63,000 babies were conceived via IVF. In fact, more than five million children have been born through assisted reproductive technologies. Granted, this number still keeps such reproduction in the slim minority, but all technological advances starting time out with the numbers against them.

Socially, also, heterosexuality is losing its "high ground," equally it were. If at that place was a time when homosexual indiscretions were the scandals du jour, we've since moved on to another world, i riddled with the heterosexual affairs of politicians and celebrities, complete with pictures, text messages, and more than than a few video tapes. Popular civilisation is replete with images of dysfunctional straight relationships and marriages. Further, between 1960 and 1980, Katz notes, the divorce charge per unit rose 90%. And while it's dropped considerably over the past three decades, it hasn't recovered and so much that anyone tin merits "relationship instability" is something exclusive to homosexuality, equally Katz shrewdly notes.

The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn't simply blurry, equally some accept Kinsey'south research to imply – it's an invention, a myth, and an outdated one. Men and women volition continue to take different-genital sexual activity with each other until the human species is no more. But heterosexuality – as a social marker, every bit a way of life, as an identity – may well dice out long before and so.

Brandon Ambrosino has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe, The Atlantic, Political leader, Economist, and other publications. He lives in Delaware, and is a graduate student in theology at Villanova University.

Join 800,000+ Hereafter fans by liking us on Facebook , or follow the states on Twitter .

If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter , called "If Yous Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked option of stories from BBC Future, Earth, Civilisation, Capital, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.