…and this is a 
Biology of sexual orientation
Category: Development • Evolution • Organisms • Reproduction • Science
Posted on: August 10, 2007 9:54 AM, by PZ Myers
Here is an excellent article on the biology of sexual orientation. We all know this is a contentious issue — are we born with an orientation, or is it a 'choice' that people make? — and the article just lays the facts out for us and points out some of the lacunae in our knowledge.
First, I'll confess to my own position on that nature-nurture debate: it's both and it's neither, and the argument is misplaced. There is no template on the Y chromosome that triggers a sexual response when Pamela Anderson enters the visual field, but there almost certainly are general predispositions that are a product of genetics, development, and learning. Even if there were no genetic component at all, it shouldn't matter in social policy or in our interactions with other people: my own heterosexuality is fairly strongly fixed and was acquired before I was really aware of it, and I'm willing to see other's homosexuality, no matter what its source, as equally fixed, and changing it as both undesirable and unjust.
The article discusses animal studies, in particular with mice and rats, and there it is clear that sexual orientation is established by a biological factor, hormone exposure. Hormone exposure in developing brains causes remodeling that fixes a behavioral response, and in lab animals, you can tinker with that directly, removing a hormone or adding an exogenous one, and controlling for other variables in the environment. You can't do that with people — can you imagine the reaction to an NIH grant proposal that suggested injecting pregnant women with hormones to induce homosexuality? Can you imagine anyone agreeing to being that kind of experimental subject? — which means of course that there is a dearth of direct evidence for such phenomena in us. We rely on natural experiments that accidentally manipulate embryonic hormone exposure, and then we try to pick apart the effect in a clutter of other uncontrolled variables. The authors point out that there is precisely one study that shows a statistical effect of modified prenatal exposure to a gonadal hormone that is correlated with later sexual orientation.
There is one very interesting explanation for the apparent difference between rodents and humans. Rodent sexuality is tied to hormone levels throughout their life, with cycles of sexual interest and activity in both males and females. Humans have uncoupled sex from hormonal regulation to a much greater degree, so we can have sex any time of the month or any season of the year (and isn't that a good thing?). This suggests an interesting evolutionary hypothesis: perhaps the lability of sexual orientation in humans is a side-effect of unshackling sexual behavior from tight cyclic hormonal regulation. Freeing us from the bonds of the spring rut or the monthly estrus means human brains aren't quite as locked in to a single sexual stimulus. (This can't be the whole explanation, of course, since even species with restricted mating seasons can exhibit same-sex mating behaviors.)
Anyway, you know what they say: read the whole thing. It's a good, measured article that promotes a sensible view of sexual orientation and also recommends more research on the issue.
Comments
Yeahhhhhhhh! Canadians 'trigger a sexual response', eh!
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | August 10, 2007 10:01 AM
Why do people forget that it just takes a single gene in Drosophila to turn them into displaying homosexual behavior....
Posted by: kim | August 10, 2007 10:21 AM
I've always thought that the comparison with left-handedness is pretty appropriate. I don't know if you can find a "left-handed gene," but no one would argue that handedness is learned, either, as every father who tried to teach his son to throw left-handed could tell you.
(in fact, from what I've heard, twin studies tend to find stronger correlations in homosexuality than in handedness)
An interesting thing about handedness: just as there are "bisexuals" there are people who have conflicting handedness. For example, my neighbor growing up threw and batted right-handed, but kicked left-footed.
Posted by: Pablo | August 10, 2007 10:25 AM
Just as Male and Female are extremes ends of a spectrum (note nipples on men, structural homologs of penis and clitoris) so too, I expect, Gay and Straight are extremes of a spectrum. In both spectra there are some scattered throughout the middle. Black and White are just shades of Gray.
Posted by: Cappy | August 10, 2007 10:27 AM
What I don't really understand is this: (OK, I _do_ understand it, but I like to pretend)
We have two areas of human experience. There is Religion, and Sexual Orientation. On the one hand, we bend over backwards to allow people the freedom to choose their religion, to have it or not have it, whatever. On the other hand, we're rigidly locked into heterosexuality and ask 'what makes people gay?'
No one sits around and goes 'Are people biologically predisposed to being Christian?' 'What gene makes people Pastafarians?' etc. Yet we continue to fight for special privilege under law for people of practicing faiths.
What does it matter where a person's orientation comes from? I admit it's a facinating biological study, just as 'What makes someone Christian' is a facinating sociological and psychological study.
But I don't see where these questions have anything to do with people's rights to live their lives as they want too.
Posted by: Brendan S | August 10, 2007 10:32 AM
The problem is, unsurprisingly, that if god has personally told you that a given behaviour is wrong then no amount of reason and appeals to stop being a bigot will ever work. Look at the recent fuss here in the UK when the Catholic Church insisted on its (literally) God-given right to continue to discriminate against gay people in the face of legislation making this illegal. No amount of discussion about the biology of sexual orientation is going to make an impact on this type of thinking (or more precisely believing)
Posted by: Dylan | August 10, 2007 10:43 AM
I don't care whether anybody, straight or gay, made a choice or is compelled to be "that way". My only problem is seeing beyond their sexual orientaion to their character.
I can respect and honor and befriend the gayest, flamingest, transvestite queen in the world, and I have (hello Nora Neat, daaarling- hope you are still around and doing well)
On the other hand, I have no use for a rapist, or an aspiring rapist.
Posted by: Mooser | August 10, 2007 10:50 AM
I agree with #5 and would like to add just one more thought or two.
Researchers has already shown quite clearly, people DO CHOOSE to become homosexual, and usually only after they have been preyed upon by older homosexuals. Why is this knowledge always ignored? Why do people look for answers in genes and hormones when the Truth is already known?
Posted by: Hipple, Rev. Paul T. | August 10, 2007 10:54 AM
Oh, yes. Whenever "truth" is capitalized, I know I can absolutely trust whatever blather comes out. Sheesh. Name one researcher. Show me one peer-reviewed study. Or stop blathering.
Posted by: LanceR | August 10, 2007 10:59 AM
(0)(0)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | August 10, 2007 11:02 AM
Rev Paul T Hipple,
No, we don't. That simple.
Posted by: Dylan | August 10, 2007 11:03 AM
Once these guys figure out why I'm bisexual, maybe they can explain why I'm a furry.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 11:05 AM
DR. Paul Cameron PhD has published numerous scientific articles on this matter.
Posted by: Hipple, Rev. Paul T. | August 10, 2007 11:07 AM
Paul Cameron, LOL!
I wish I could say "you're way too over the top to be for real", but I live in the U.S.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 11:10 AM
Paul Cameron, the EX-psychologist? The one who was expelled from the American Psychological Association for ethical violations? Right. Any REAL studies or researchers?
Posted by: LanceR | August 10, 2007 11:12 AM
No one sits around and goes 'Are people biologically predisposed to being Christian?'
You are fr*ming the question wrong. Plenty of people sit around and ask: Are people biologically predisposed to being religious?, or "predisposed to attributing conscious intent to natural phenomena", or whatever. Putting Christianity in there is the equivalent of asking "Are some people biologically predisposed to wearing buttless leather trousers?"
Posted by: windy | August 10, 2007 11:13 AM
I'll second that LOL and i'll raise you a "PZ, can you please ban woot?"
Posted by: Carpworld | August 10, 2007 11:14 AM
This Paul Cameron? Clearly an unbiased source.
Posted by: Gelf | August 10, 2007 11:16 AM
@Rev. Hipple - Reverend, I've checked out your website, and I'm wondering, do you think that Sen. Brownback is some kind of closet hippie/communist/atheist, or just that he's not as much of a supporter of the dominionist position as Rep. Tancredo? And what do you think of the Baptists for Brownback site?
Question for PZ or others who might know - the article mentions animal species with "two (or more) separate sexes". To which I responded "!?!?" What species are being referred to here?
Posted by: NickM | August 10, 2007 11:16 AM
Rev. Hipple:
"Researchers has already shown quite clearly, people DO CHOOSE to become homosexual, and usually only after they have been preyed upon by older homosexuals"
So, have the researchers shown that a large number of altar boys become homosexual?
Posted by: Alan Wagenr | August 10, 2007 11:19 AM
Researchers has already shown quite clearly, people DO CHOOSE to become homosexual, and usually only after they have been preyed upon by older homosexuals.
Because it's most likely a correlational relationship. Pedophiles tend to prey on more effeminate boys, many (but not all) of whom grow up to be gay.
Posted by: outlier | August 10, 2007 11:19 AM
Putting Christianity in there is the equivalent of asking "Are some people biologically predisposed to wearing buttless leather trousers?"
/me stares blankly for long seconds, then blinks
Um, sorry about that. What were we talking about?
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 11:20 AM
Oops - I know what species have 2 sexes, of course. I meant what species have "or more".
Posted by: NickM | August 10, 2007 11:20 AM
Dr. Cameron spoke at my church several years ago. He is a good Christian gentleman and was very persuasive. Yes, I heard he had some sort of professional difficulties. He told me about a horrible rumor spread on the interweb by his detractors who disagreed with his scientific conclusions, and that was not unusual in his scientific field. I don't know about all that, but I can personally vouch for his integrity and humility.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:9-11
Posted by: Hipple, Rev. Paul T. | August 10, 2007 11:22 AM
When it boils down to it, Christians are adamant about homosexuality being an even worse sin than those darned ones in the Ten Commandments like "Thou shalt not kill/murder/whatever" and explicitly prohibited actions like being greedy. Heck, homosexuality is even worse than abortion considering how quickly legislation was passed banning same-sex marriages, and yet abortions are still largely legal.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 10, 2007 11:22 AM
For civil rights purposes the biology of sexual orientation should be irrelevant. In a civilized society it should be nobody else's damned business which gender a person chooses to sleep with.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 10, 2007 11:23 AM
NickM, if I had to guess, I'd suspect they're talking about species that have males, females, and hermaphrodites. Though I'm hard-pressed to think of a species off the top of my head with all three occurring naturally...
Posted by: Aaron | August 10, 2007 11:25 AM
I'm with Carpworld--PZ, ban woot.
Posted by: cm | August 10, 2007 11:29 AM
Wikipedia lists a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
Also I found this:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020183
Skimming through the article I discovered this:
I wouldn't like to be one of those guys
I'm probably being a bit simple, but can somebody tell me how to do that trick where you can put the link on a single word or phrase rather than having to paste the whole address?
Posted by: Andrew G | August 10, 2007 11:34 AM
I like the left handededness comparison. I am left-handed, and so is my father. When I played softball, I threw left-handed, but batted right-handed. Why? My father's brother, a right-handed individual, taught my father to bat right- handed. My father taught me the same way, and even if I have left-handed children, I will have to teach them to bat right-handed. So there is definitely somewhat of a combination of learned and inherited behavior.
Posted by: jenni | August 10, 2007 11:34 AM
Hipple, Rev. Paul T.,
You are the perfect example of what is wrong with your religion.
You have been given documented evidence that discredits Cameron, and yet because you saw him once, several years ago, and he told you they were lies and that there is a conspiracy against him, you believe him above all else. Because you are the perfect judge of integrity, and a conspiracy makes more sense to you.
You're not a child anymore. People WILL lie to your face while smiling. You have the tools to verify the things people say, but your blinders are getting in the way.
Posted by: matthew | August 10, 2007 11:36 AM
There are many other studies (reputable ones Rev Hipple) that examine the biological roots of sexual orientation. I have extensive links and some analysis on my website.
Posted by: Casey | August 10, 2007 11:43 AM
Matthew in #31, Dr. Cameron put it this way: When a man's protoplasm mixes with that of a woman, what wonderful thing can happen? But when a man mixes his protoplasm with another man, nothing can happen. It should be obvious from this that it just is Not Natural and so it Only serves the purpose of fornication, whereas when a man and woman fornicate, a miracle is always a possibility.
I feel very out of my place here and am unused to this persecution and feel I have become an unwitting distraction to your professional conversation. It is a bit like y'all coming to my church during services and talking about darwinism.
I do not wish to get further involved in this discussion with you gentlemen any further and wish you a good day and pray that you treat your wives better when you get home than you have treated me.
Posted by: Hipple, Rev. Paul T. | August 10, 2007 11:49 AM
Thanks for the links, Andrew G. So it seems they're talking about genetic sex rather than morphology (i.e. the clam shrimp, with two kinds of female and one male), though the article about the harvester ants is certainly interesting.
Posted by: Aaron | August 10, 2007 11:49 AM
I'll take a chance at being disemvoweled. I'll try one comment--with a promise of not responding to any that might get directed at me, only because I find Rev. Hipple's comments disturbing.
Rev Hipple, suppose Augustine and Pelagius adressed this topic in their great debate. Both, we can assume, considered homosexual behavior sinful (which is not the point.) Pelagius would, consistent with his theology, argue that homosexuals choose their orientation, because, according to Pelagius, we all are born neutral.
Augustine would argue the other way, for he believed that people were born with all sorts of predispositions.
So keep in mind that you, and all my fellow Christians who insist that homosexuals are not born gay, are making an overtly Pelagian argument. And remember that Pelagianism has repeatedly been declared a heresy, while Augustine's view has been embraced as orthodoxy.
Posted by: David Heddle | August 10, 2007 11:50 AM
Andrew, hyperlink syntax is here.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 11:51 AM
Shorter Rev Hipple:
"You guys are mean! Gays are gross! I can't argue so I'll just run away!"
Sheesh. Since when was asking for *VALID* references "persecution"?
Posted by: LanceR | August 10, 2007 11:54 AM
It is a bit like y'all coming to my church during services and talking about darwinism.
Which never happens, hint hint.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 11:54 AM
For me, that's the crux of the matter.
It's not homosexuality that bothers me... it's the FLAUNTING of homosexuality that bothers me. And it doesn't really bother me any more than the flaunting of heterosexuality.
Anyone who runs around defining their existence in a public way by flaunting their sexuality make me feel uncomfortable. In essence, I don't care what you do behind closed doors. I don't want to hear about your conquests, and I certainly don't want to see the conquest taking place. And if you choose to publicly show off your sexuality, I think you have also chosen to accept public commentary, both positive and negative.
So if you and your partner want to walk down the street holding hands, cool... it's subtle, inoffensive. If you and your partner want to sit on the bench in a shopping mall sucking face and manipulating each other's genitals, well, that's disgusting whether it's two men, two women, or a man and a woman, and you should expect to be told so.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 10, 2007 12:02 PM
First, did you really type "interweb" non-ironically? Don't do that.
Assuming you are sincere, you have been misled. Dr. Cameron's "professional difficulties" are not at all usual.
If you genuinely are a pastor of some sort, I can perhaps understand where you might assume "horrible rumors" means implications of some personal indiscretion. That's usually the context in which a pastor would encounter "professional difficulties."
To give a closer comparison of the sort of behavior that led to Cameron's difficulties, imagine if the Southern Baptist Convention heard of one of their member pastors preaching that Jesus never died for people's sins, and that they were all going to Hell, unless they spent ten minutes every morning clucking like a chicken. This hypothetical pastor claims to have gotten his information from the Bible, but is vague about exactly where, and claims persecution when challenged on it. The SBC might quite rightly want to remove this man from the rolls and publicly distance themselves from actions that in no way conform to the expected standard of professional performance among their members.
Now of course one wouldn't usually expect that sort of thing to happen among pastors. It isn't all that common among scientists either, but that's the sort of thing Cameron did with regard to the practice of research psychology. It isn't a "horrible rumor" when his unprofessionalism is something he himself proclaims as virtue. Making unsubstantiated claims that support a personal political agenda (like "most gay people were molested as children") and failing to back them up, while intentionally distorting the research conclusions of his peers to offer false support to those claims is simply unacceptable practice within his chosen field.
Cameron may be as personally nice and humble as anybody, but he's among the very worst of research psychologists. It takes more than a professional disagreement over conclusions to be thrown out of every professional organization you've ever belonged to.
Posted by: Gelf | August 10, 2007 12:02 PM
Hipple, Rev. Paul T.:
For one thing many of the folks here are women, and may find it offensive that you refer to the people posting here as 'gentlemen'. For another, you assume such gentlemen have 'wives' automatically discriminating against those who have domestic partner arrangements (or something even looser).
You, sir, are a narrow minded bigot, who does not even do the courtesy of reviewing evidence. I have seen you post here a number of times, always with seemingly innocuous comments but always with an intemperate perspective. I can only hope that you are a parody. If you are real, I worry for the sanity of your 'flock' - if you truly are a reverend, *they* must have fallen out of the stupid tree.
Quoting your bible does not constitute a cogent argument. We do not accept the veracity of the source, so such citations are worthless - except from a historical perspective.
Posted by: tony | August 10, 2007 12:04 PM
Maybe because it's not particularly relevant. There's a single gene on Drosophilia that causes them to grow an extra set of wings as well.
The analogy to human behavior simply isn't there.
I favor the nature/nurture approach and find it truly interesting that my own orientation is so variable. I honestly do not understand -- because I don't inhabit that headspace -- how anyone can remain solely attracted to one gender only, at all times and in all circumstances.
Oh well. De gustibus non disputandem est.
Posted by: Warren | August 10, 2007 12:06 PM
So, being a liar and a bigot is what it takes to be a good Christian gentleman?
Posted by: MAJeff | August 10, 2007 12:07 PM
I don't think people should respond to Rev. Hipple's comments seriously. I think he's a satirist of the "Baptists for Brownback" type. Take a look at his website and I think you'll agree. I'm sure there are plenty of idiots who would agree with his views, but I don't think any of them are commenting here today.
Posted by: NickM | August 10, 2007 12:08 PM
Well, if my wife* refrains from making baseless generalistic accusations of child abuse, defending the expertise of cranks and liars, and making bogus claims of persecution, I think it will not be difficult for me to treat her better than you have been treated.
It's easier to speak to an audience than it is to speak to a flock, is it not?
* I don't actually have a wife, but I wouldn't mind...
Posted by: valhar2000 | August 10, 2007 12:12 PM
"Rev. Hipple" runs the "Dominionists for Tancredo" website PZ mentions in his recent post. That website is clearly a parody. "Rev. Hipple" is just pushing buttons here, presumably for his/her/their own entertainment. Don't take the proposed arguments seriously.
Posted by: Tulse | August 10, 2007 12:12 PM
Perhaps I should be happy that so soon after commenting that religion was the problem here the Rev Hipple pops up. Possibly divine providence sent him to prove me right. I'd still rather be wrong though.
Posted by: Dylan | August 10, 2007 12:12 PM
Thanks, Tukla
Posted by: Andrew G | August 10, 2007 12:14 PM
I think the Rev Hipple has gone back into his closet.
I do wonder at the mindset of anyone (religious or not)who believes they have a right to impose their views on the personal lives of other folk.
Treat others as you wish to be treated, unless you're a masochist, that's what I say.
Posted by: Scrofulum | August 10, 2007 12:15 PM
You'd be amazed how easy it is for some of us...
I have sometimes wondered if and how much my own condition colours by perception fo this issue. I have never had any doubt that women are attractive and men are not, so it seemed perfectly natural to me that people of other orientations might have a similar experience. Alas, it seems not to be so.
Posted by: valhar2000 | August 10, 2007 12:17 PM
NickM
Sort of leaning in that direction myself, honestly, without having looked at his site. The likelihood of someone genuinely that pollyannaish stumbling in here by chance is pretty low, and, seriously, "interweb?" I honestly took a chance he might be for real simply because if he's a troll, he's actually not a very skilled one. I can spare him a single reply. Pretty much done now either way.
Posted by: Gelf | August 10, 2007 12:22 PM
Given one twin who is gay and left-handed, the other twin is more likely to be gay than left-handed.
Posted by: Pablo | August 10, 2007 12:24 PM
Gelf - I like to see a good-old-fashioned Pharyngula-style fundie-stompin' as much as the next heathen, but I actually started to feel guilty watching people respond to that guy seriously while knowing (pretty much) he was one of those new-fangled parody trolls.
Posted by: NickM | August 10, 2007 12:27 PM
I do not wish to get further involved in this discussion with you gentlemen any further and wish you a good day and pray that you treat your wives better when you get home than you have treated me.
Sounds like your typical latent homosexual Christian preacher.
Posted by: ngong | August 10, 2007 12:30 PM
Lots of fish species have all three occurring naturally in various combinations of space and time. (If you study reproductive biology, mammals look positively vanilla in comparison to fish.)
I don't want to spoil a fun children's film, so let's just say that Finding Nemo didn't tell the full story about clownfish.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 10, 2007 12:39 PM
so it seemed perfectly natural to me that people of other orientations might have a similar experience
No doubt some do, while others (like me) are baffled by what seems like an arbitrary distinction between male and female attractiveness. It's not that I deny such a distinction exists and can be quite strong for many people; I just can't grasp it emotionally.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 12:41 PM
So, Hipple is most likely a parody troll huh? I feel used...
Posted by: matthew | August 10, 2007 12:41 PM
Tukla, that's generally the case with emotions that one lacks oneself. By the same token, I can't emotionally grasp what it's like to be attracted to a man, to the extent that I sometimes marvel that women are. ;) (Not a boast- in fact I think of it as a limitation, but one I seem to be stuck with.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 10, 2007 12:54 PM
What if we are born with an orientation, AND we can make a 'choice' about it?
For example, some people are born with 'indeterminate' sexual organs.
If orientation is a grayscale from "extremely heterosexual" to "extremely homosexual", then there are a lot of people who will likely never change their minds- at either end of the scale.
That leaves the people in the middle of the grayscale- a wide swath of 'indeterminate' orientation.
Those who end up there may, perhaps, have the 'option' to change their minds about their orientation- given that they will likely default to heterosexual as this is what society suggests.
The truth is, who cares? ...the people who have a problem with their own sexuality, usually. They need to get over it. The 'truth' of sexual orientation may or may not be discovered, proven, but we will go on mostly ignoring it in everyday life anyway.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | August 10, 2007 1:05 PM
Pablo, the condition you describe is called cross- or mixed-dominance. I write and hold a fork--but not chopsticks, for some reason--with my left hand, but am generally orthodox (as opposed to southpaw) in sports.
(I'm also generally a poor athlete, but that's only because I was preyed upon by an older couch potato when I was young.)
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 1:09 PM
re Hipple:
I feel used.
Posted by: tony | August 10, 2007 1:12 PM
No doubt some do, while others (like me) are baffled by what seems like an arbitrary distinction between male and female attractiveness. It's not that I deny such a distinction exists and can be quite strong for many people; I just can't grasp it emotionally.
It really is funny how much variety exists here. As a (very?) straight woman, I find it much easier to understand attraction to a particular gender than attraction somewhat irrespective of gender, as you seem to be describing it. I have no doubt that a lot of people experience things as you do; I just have no point of reference. After all, the very thing that makes men attractive to me is their man-ness. As in, not women. So, it's difficult for me to mentally construct a model of "attractiveness" that doesn't take this into account either positively or negatively. I wouldn't know who to be attracted to anymore!
Of course, that's just me. As I said, I just find the variety of human experience in this regard to be quite interesting.
Posted by: kmarissa | August 10, 2007 1:15 PM
My father was born in 1916 in the US and was lefthanded. In school, his condition was treated as a deliberate act of rebelliousness and he was punished for it. They even tied his left hand behind his back so that he would learn to write with his right hand. And he did learn, and well. He could write legibly left or right. (And, no, his 'hands' were not the same -- which made him laugh at the idea of handwriting analysis revealing character.)
As to developmental causation, consider that freemartins have been known about since cows were first domesticated. The condition cannot be genetic, even the ancients knew that (although they though of the bloods mixing, not DNA). The cause, known for millennia, is in-utero masculinization due to the male twin. Practically everybody in farm country knows what freemartins are, and the cause, yet it seems that country folk are more inclined to demonize homosexuality in humans than city folk.
Posted by: CRM-114 | August 10, 2007 1:18 PM
kmarissa wrote:
"I wouldn't know who to be attracted to anymore!"
Kinda fun when no one's off limits!
Posted by: Mrs. Peach | August 10, 2007 1:20 PM
"Just as Male and Female are extremes ends of a spectrum (note nipples on men, structural homologs of penis and clitoris) so too, I expect, Gay and Straight are extremes of a spectrum. In both spectra there are some scattered throughout the middle. Black and White are just shades of Gray."
If so you might expect a normal distribution curve with the majority in the middle. I would be extremely surprised if this were the case. I would rpedict a bimodal distribution with hetrosexual being the much larger curve, gays being a smaller one and some mixing at the low part between the two curves.
Posted by: sailor | August 10, 2007 1:34 PM
I've been meaning to check the sources, but in the book Sperm Wars by Robin Baker states there have been studies showing that bisexuality can be seen as a reproductive strategy, and that homosexuality is probably an extreme of that.
Posted by: Stevie Rox | August 10, 2007 1:40 PM
After all, the very thing that makes men attractive to me is their man-ness.
One misconception I've come across (not saying that you're expressing it, but I've seen it elsewhere) is that I must have only a single "type"-- that since I'm attracted to both men and women, I must be attracted to a sort of in-between androgynous sort of person, but that's really not true. I actually have two quite different "models" in my head, and I don't doubt that many straight men and women could relate to my models. They just don't have both in their head at the same time like I do.
In the end, I think it's important that we try to understand each other's point of view, even if we can't actually grasp them on an emotional level. It's a very touchy subject and easy to offend people, so I do my best to explain that my inability to relate to the point of view of someone like you with a strong preference doesn't mean that I think there's something wrong with it. I've gotten enough hate from both ends of the sexuality spectrum; I have no interest in responding in kind.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 1:43 PM
jenni @30-
Please do not do your children the same disservice. A speedy lefty has a few feet advantage in beating out an infield single. I tried my hardest to learn how to swing from the left side when I was a kid, and could never get it right. I wish I had started earlier.
If anything, teach them to switch-hit. Batting effectively from both sides of the plate can be a nice advantage at the competetive level.
Posted by: povertyrich | August 10, 2007 1:50 PM
I was ready to tear you a new one, squid, then reread your comment and an willing to consider you simply have a huge blind spot or are unaware that saying a gay man is "flaunting" his sexuality is like telling an African-American he's being "uppity." Regardless of whether it's true, there's too much history there for it to be taken in any way other than as a deliberate, provocative insult.
Putting aside your own measure of groping in public places, which I'll cede as broadly valid, describing a homosexual as "flaunting" is a coded word that means "not pretending to be straight." The homosexual standard for "flaunting" is existing. The heterosexual standard for "flaunting" is usually somewhere around actually having sex in a public place, and even that most commonly results in an admonishment to get a room, not arrest, assault, or murder.
Posted by: usagi | August 10, 2007 1:53 PM
I had the same reaction, Usagi. I didn't say anything because I couldn't find the right words, so thank you for yours.
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 2:01 PM
Now, here's some outrageous tyranny to flame!
jenni (#30):
You will? Why? As the exclusively right-handed offspring of an exclusively left-handed baseball/softball fanatic, I had no trouble learning to hit from my natural side of the plate. The teaching technique isn't difficult--you just refer to "back elbow," "front hip," etc., rather than "right elbow," "left hip," and so on.Heck, who wouldn't want to hit left-handed? You're closer to first base, bunting is easier, and--especially in youth and low-amateur-adult leagues--defensive players on the right side (the pull side for lefty batters) are generally weaker than those on the left side.
Down with side-of-the-plate indoctrination of children!!!!eleven!!
Posted by: Rieux | August 10, 2007 2:06 PM
Damn--beaten by sixteen minutes by povertyrich.
At least my response was surlier.
Posted by: Rieux | August 10, 2007 2:08 PM
I actually have two quite different "models" in my head, and I don't doubt that many straight men and women could relate to my models.
In all honesty, I don't think I actually thought about what the people you were attracted to were like in that regard. Seemed a bit impolite, imagining the sex life of a stranger ;) I'm not surprised that people would think you were attracted to androgyny, for precisely the reason you mention above. I think most people just don't realize that orientations like yours actually exist.
For my comment, I just meant that whatever internal framework determines where a person rates in attractiveness is inextricably linked to gender for me (and I imagine for most people? I may be wrong). I think you understand what I meant based on your reply. It's not only that men or women like me don't have both in our heads at the same time (although of course there is that); it's additionally that each of the two "models" would actually define the other model as unattractive based on criteria in the first model. But maybe, now, I'm just getting too confusing.
I wish I could say that I was surprised that you've experienced this kind of hatred, but sadly, I'm not. Frankly, I do find it hard to understand why anyone would get so worked up about who someone else was attracted to. And no, I never thought that you meant anything negative about a "decidedly straight" or "decidedly gay" orientation rather than a "decidedly bi" orientation, and likewise I never meant anything negative about your orientation. I think it's interesting as a general subject, but beyond casual curiosity, I really don't care whether any given person is attracted to men, women, both, or FLDS Mormons.
But if the latter, please don't breed more.
Posted by: kmarissa | August 10, 2007 2:10 PM
Usagi (#69):
Some atheist blogger or another (I can't imagine who...) might point out that this same problem exists for atheists who are accused of being "militant" or "fundamentalist" in their (our) expression or outlook. The double standard described above is eerily familiar.Posted by: Rieux | August 10, 2007 2:13 PM
#16:
I don't really relate them on the same level as you do, but the outcome, for me, is basically the same.
We already established a wide open area of law for exemptions for what I see as basically an arbitrary choice, that is, religion. People are given 'religious' vouchers or waivers for things that are otherwise required by law.
So, what do we care if 'gayness' is genetic or not. We've already established that our laws can be circumvented, etc. by one arbitrary choice, why not another?
I realize the argument isn't quite along parallels, but I've never found the obsession with discovering that gayness is a choice to be that compelling. Even if it comes out that being gay is 100% a choice of people, I still don't think we should deny them rights to marriage. Just like we don't deny religion exemption.
Posted by: Brendan S | August 10, 2007 2:16 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 10, 2007 2:45 PM
I think you understand what I meant based on your reply.
I think we understand each other pretty well. Which is why I'm not bringing out the tired "dogs and cats" analogy.
I think it's interesting as a general subject, but beyond casual curiosity, I really don't care whether any given person is attracted to men, women, both
Agreed for the most part. It does become a practical matter when flirting, though. ;-)
But yeah, I don't care who a person loves. I'm much more concerned by who they hate, especially when they try to encode that hate into law.
or FLDS Mormons. But if the latter, please don't breed more.
LOL!
Iowa may not be home of the most open-minded people, but I can think of much worse places to live
Posted by: Tukla in Iowa | August 10, 2007 2:49 PM
Researchers has already shown quite clearly, people DO CHOOSE to become homosexual, and usually only after they have been preyed upon by older homosexuals.
Then people also choose to become heterosexual, usually after being preyed upon by older heterosexuals?
Try talking to actual gay people about their sexual self-discovery sometime. In many cases (thankfully not as much anymore now that society is slightly more understanding) they went through years of trying desperately to be attracted to the opposite gender, doing everything possible to be *normal*, and finally realizing that their preference was innate and couldn't be budged. Yeah, some choice. The way we treat homosexuals here, it's hard to believe that anyone would choose to be ostracized, ridiculed, thrown into a mental asylum, or dragged behind a truck until dead.
I'm amused by theists who declare that people all have homosexual attractions, but good Christians are the people who don't act on them and thereby "become gay". No, dear, if you are attracted to the same sex, you're gay. Maybe bisexual. Maybe that's it, that people who claim that people "choose" to be gay are bisexual and therefore do have the opportunity to choose sides. Otherwise it makes about as much sense to say that people choose to be gay as it does to say that people choose to be heterosexual.
Posted by: Carlie | August 10, 2007 2:52 PM
1) Years ago, one of my teachers said that for sexual orientation, nature and nurture are "inextricably entwined," and that phrasing has stuck with me ever since as eminently sensible given the evidence we have at this point.
2) Cappy: I've never read that way of wording it before, and I might have to borrow it to go with "inextricably entwined." It rings.
Posted by: Mary | August 10, 2007 3:06 PM
Thalarctos (#55):
True. The killifish came to mind for me; hermaphrodites normally undergo obligate internal self-fertilization, but under certain circumstances the males can apparently mate with the "females" (immature hermaphrodites) and stir up the gene pool. I wasn't sure if sex changes counted as different sexes, though. ;-)
Posted by: Aaron | August 10, 2007 3:32 PM
Gurf! (Only sound I can think of to express my frustration at the discussion/judgements on "bisexuality" -- the quotes give you some idea of my thoughts on the matter.)
People have sex. They have sex for different reasons, with different people, at different times in their lives. Adding more labels than that leads to demonizing people for their activities.
Is a man who is basically a complete slut, a "top" who takes the attitude "a hole is a hole" a bisexual? Or is he "something else"? Is a person who is heterosexual when out in society, yet moves easily to sex with the same gender while in prison a bisexual? What about a woman who loves "falling in love", and falls in love with both men and women? And what about the person who masturbates to images of goats -- while being married and a good parent? What do you call that? How about the millions of British public
schoolboys who went through adolescence jerking each other off, but who are now heterosexual-"normal"? (whatever that is)
Hormone-imprinting during prenatal development sets up baseline attractions for an individual; sexual experiences, positive and negative selectively reinforce chosen behaviours; our big brains and our imaginations allow us fuck an umbrella while imagining it is Nefertiti, Queen of Egypt, and we are the reincarnation of Jerry Lewis.
What consenting adults do with their sex lives, ESPECIALLY if it changes over time, is not a reflection of their character, except in a general sense (considerate lovers are more likely to be considerate people when out of bed, and vice versa).
Posted by: Hairhead | August 10, 2007 3:40 PM
As a gay man I ha