The points concerning language and dictam are well taken; however, to disregard the ideas set forth in this essay as possessing excessive verbal baggage while lacking substantive ideas misses the point. I am attempting to drive forth a relatively simple idea indeed, but to articulate this point - which is so counterintuitive to most people - as many idiomatic expressions as possible is, perhaps necessary, and in fact helpful. As far as citing explicitly the work to which I make reference, I will direct you to Foucualt’s “History of Sexuality,” and, specifically, to the chapter therein entitled “The Repressive Hypothesis.”

On a final note, Foucault does more than explore ‘external’ power structures, he goes so far as to introduce how external powers come to be internalized organizing the way we think about our selves and the proper avenues of our comportment in social reality.  Power is what molds subjectivity, so power exists in and throughout our selves and does not constitue a dynamic existing apart from ourselves, as an ‘external’ source of power that acts restrictively upon us.  As Foucault argued, power is productive, not restrictive.
As far as the social sciences I despise so much, I am a social scientist, who is a sociologist. I do not despise them, I simply think they all too easily make normative assumptions that come to be represented as aspects to objective reality due to their integration into the discourse of scientism.

I have to agree with Dr. Youngward - you really must simplify your writing style. You obviously excel at cramming a great many words into relatively few ideas. It might also be wise to cite some solid sources to back up such radical thinking.

Regarding the point of view you set forth in your essay - I don’t think most people would think that their sexual identity has been forced upon them by behavioral scientists. I can’t speak for all heterosexual men, but I’m pretty sure I would be exclusively attracted to women (and not other men, children, farm animals, household appliances, etc) even if psychology had never become a field of study.