What factors (biological, psychological, social) influence men's preferences for specific sexual acts?

1. Biological drivers: hormones, genes, brain organization

Biological elements set the physiological capacity and baseline appetites that constrain and shape preference: sex hormones such as testosterone influence libido and arousal potential, and prenatal hormonal environments are implicated in orienting attraction patterns and later sexual behavior ^{[4] [5]}; genetic and neurodevelopmental factors also contribute to whom men are attracted to and plausibly to patterns of erotic interest, as twin and molecular studies point to heritable components and brain-region differences tied to sexual orientation and preference ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Psychological forces: mental health, learning, and sexual scripts

Psychological variables often mediate how biological drives are expressed; depression, anxiety, body image, automatic erotic thoughts, and learned associations (including trauma or early sexual experiences) can amplify, dampen, or redirect desire toward particular acts, and cognitive beliefs about sex—dysfunctional sexual schemas or distraction during sex—are shown to be strong predictors of male sexual interest and the types of acts men prefer or avoid ^{[1] [7] [2]}.

3. Social and cultural shaping: norms, media, and relational context

Social context outlines what is felt permissible, desirable, or shameful: cultural gender scripts and masculinity norms shape expectations that can inflate or repress certain preferences, while peers, religion, schools and especially mass media transmit sexual scripts that influence how men interpret arousal and acceptable behavior; relationship factors—communication, emotional connection, feeling desired—alter preferences in partnered contexts versus casual contexts ^{[2] [4] [8] [3]}.

4. Interaction: why single-factor explanations fail

Contemporary biopsychosocial models emphasize interaction—drive (biological potential), motivation (psychological states), and wish (cultural ideals)—so that the same hormonal level or genetic predisposition can yield different behavioral outcomes depending on mood, partner chemistry, learned fantasies, and social constraints; empirical reviews repeatedly find biology necessary but not sufficient, and cognitive and relational variables often explain variance in desire and expressed preference beyond pure physiology ^{[9] [1] [7]}.

5. Disputed areas, measurement limits, and alternative interpretations

There is notable debate and methodological limitation in the field: causality is often unresolved (whether a factor influences preference or results from it), many studies rely on self-report or nonrepresentative samples (limiting generalizability), and socialization explanations are sometimes challenged by biological findings such as fraternal birth-order effects or prenatal hormone associations—researchers caution against simplistic biological determinism even as they acknowledge biological contributions ^{[1] [5] [10]}. Alternative viewpoints exist about the weight of social vs biological causes—some reviews favor biological foundations for orientations while others stress context and power dynamics in shaping behavior ^{[6] [3]}.

6. Practical upshot and research gaps

For clinicians, educators, and men themselves the implication is pragmatic: preferences are malleable and multiply determined—addressing mental health, improving communication, and examining cultural scripts can change how desires are experienced and enacted—yet large gaps remain in longitudinal and causal research that would clarify developmental pathways and disentangle orientation from act-specific preference, a limitation acknowledged across systematic reviews ^{[1] [2] [11]}.