DoctorInWaiting wrote:
This has always made me wonder! Being a psychologist myself I partially agree with Freud, some things seem to radical and the oedipus is quite rightly one of THE most controversial arguments. One feels that Freud suggested that the innate oedipus was a cue for heterosexuality, hence attracted to your mother (if you're a man) and vice versa. However one feels it is due to John Bowlby's attachment process that can explain the oedipus. As he said, the primary caregiver constitutes either a secure, anxious or resistant attachment according to care, affection, etc. One feels that the oedipus continues through the attachment process and if the primary caregiver (if you're a male it's mostly mother) that if it is successfully securely attached, that it secures the aspect of heterosexuality in a male. As a sort of primacy effect and schematic development entails a positivity for the future amongst females. The same can be said for females, if the oedipus is attached securely (the father) then it entails a liking for males. However a bad attachment in the first 3 years amongst the oedipus can explain a negative schematic development of the oedipus character and therefore constitute homosexuality.

One feels that is a hybrid Freudian approach, however that is a suggestion. It entails the aspect of nature and nurture and that it can be changed. It maybe totally wrong and postmodernistic society entails that there are individual differences as well as biological and psychological differences amongst people.