[Reposted without revision from gregladen.com]
This is obviously true, and i've been saying this for a long time. And I'm not talking about the butt-slaps and sharing chewing tobacco and stuff.
To a certain extent, digit ratios seem to be a reasonable indicator of the kinds of hormonal environment in which a person develops in utero. It turns out that the indicator of homosexuality is the same as the indicator of athleticism, only turned up even more. In other words, a certain kind of hormonal environment in which a male fetuses develops can result in a higher likelihood of that person growing up to be an athlete. But if that hormonal "conditioning" is turned up a bit more, you get a higher likelihood of that person being gay. How strong is this effect? Well, it's statistically significant but not large. Is it genetic? That is not at all clear. How does this work with women? That's not clear either.
Anyway, from this we can speculate that there should be a higher percentage of gay-osity among athletes than among other men. And now there is some new information that supports this model.
A study of former high-school American Football players has found that more than a third said they had had sexual relations with other men.
In his study of homosexuality among sportsmen in the US, sociologist Dr Eric Anderson found that 19 in a sample of 47 had taken part in acts intended to sexually arouse other men, ranging from kissing to mutual masturbation and oral sex.
There is, as always a twist:
The 47 men, aged 18-23, were all American Football players who previously played at the high school (secondary school) level but had failed to be picked for their university's team and were now cheerleaders instead.
Like George Bush, right?
Somehow I think sampling male cheerleaders to find out of athletes are more likely to be homosexual is... well... a little odd.
Personally, I have noticed that, going to art school, that many male artists are gay. Or rather, that a higher percentage of the male artistic community are homosexual when compared to the population as a whole.
this beings up an interesting question. Is it an expression of feminine traits that makes a man gay? or is it an exaggeration of male traits that makes a man gay? or could both be true? or neither?
The fun part is that sexuality is not as genetically simple as gender. Gender has one switch, a little gene on the Y chromosome. No one has yet to find the sexuality gene... and good luck finding it.
All 47 men just 'happened' to be cheerleaders? No, the study chose male cheerleaders from the beginning.
The study doesn't prove athletes are more likely to be gay.
It proves male cheerleaders are likely to be gay and male cheerleaders are like to have been athletes.
There's a big difference. It's like they intentionally hid the fact they were using all male cheerleaders to try to present a difference conclusion.
This is why I brought up the digit length data, which, with its simplest interpretation, shoes that male testosterone levels in utero result in phenotypes that range from a little athletic, to more athletic, to super athletic, and finally, gay.
It makes sense.
Why did you feel the need to take a political potshot in what was an otherwise interesting article about a medical phenomenon?
It only lowers your credibility.
Can I ask you to be more specific about what/whom you are referring to? I can't parse it from your post. Just me being stupid I'm sure...
range from a little athletic, to more athletic, to super athletic, and finally, gay.
Doesn't make sense. If further along the scale than super-athletic, why didn't these men make the cut for college football?
EM: You are being too essentialist. It is not like there are three categories and your hormone level in utero puts you in one of them.