Homosexuality - Nature, Nurture or Both?

[Makalakumu]

I've often argued here that homosexuality is "hardwired," but after reading LeVay I accept that the environment can play a role...the level and lasting impact of environmental influence is unclear.

I do not accept the explanation that homosexuality is a "choice." In taking this moralistic stance few ever consider that they're suggesting we are all bisexual by nature. Not too many heterosexual males will willingly admit that they could sexually eroticize a man. It isn't something they're capable of doing.

Thanks for the sources you provided, Steve. I'm very intrigued by these comments. I'm going to have to check out some of these sources that specifically address sexuality.

I'm wondering, if given the right environment, could any male eroticize another man? I could seriously care less about the moralistic ramifications of this. I would tentatively say yes, because I think our sexuality isn't fully hardwired in heterosexual or homosexual ways. I think prisons provide a pretty good anecdotal way of seeing this. Also, I think that if one were put into an environment where none of this is taboo, much about the way we behave will change.

 

[Brother John]

1. On at least one level--who cares if it's nature or nurture? Ain't nobody's bidness but one's own.

2. On another level--once again, the very question presupposes that heterosexuality is the normal state, the, "zero degree," against which some aberration of either biology or choice is to be measured.

3. On a still 'nother level--once in a while, I'd like to see the question asked: is the swaggering display, cock-of-the-walk arrogance, and narcissism that all too often passes for "normal," masculinity a matter of nature, nurture or both?

Sorry if I'm working backwards here, t's been an odd week!

#1: Fully agreed. It's the individual's issue, what I feel/think/opine about it is relevant only to myself.

#2: I'd have to think that heterosexuality is the "zero-degree". Many things in life could be said to be on a continuum I think, heterosexuality is a 'norm', and I'm basing that opinion purely on biology. Deviation from the norm to one degree or another IS average, deviation to a larger extent (homosexuality for instance) Shakes the social skif...makes waves. Morality? That again is the individuals issue and shouldn't be impinged upon by others, especially not by EITHER church or state or any other 'social' institution.

#3: I think that 'machismo' is common, maybe a 'norm', that....just like homosexuality...is difficult to pin down to just one source, a universal..."Aint nuthin but.....XYZ". It's sort of a gender continuum between the feminine and the masculine...... neither being better or worse than the other and we all fall into this continuum at some point. Is it biological? Yes, to an extent I think it's a natural extention of testosterone, what I heard one semi-philosophical BodyBuilder call "Our Strut reflex". I think that 'masculinity' is GOOD, Machismo I think denotes something that's too far to the "masculinity" side of the continuum. Like with any "Good" thing, when taken TOO FAR...it's bad. Society finds these biological trends and sees them as triggers. When shopping for a car one shouldn't care if they'd seen a particular make & model with a scantily clad woman drapped over it's hood.....so then why do addvertisers use it?? Because they know it's a trigger for the male's attention and then association between that response and the targeted item...the car. So society highlights the natural/biological tendencies and RUNS TOO FAR with it! It could be said that mans greater virtue comes from rising above the animal instinct, but not to the point of some sort of neuter-celebacy. Rather...to transcend the animal instincts by not just bypassing them, but by keeping them in proper perspective. I can enjoy and appreciate the beauty and sexual-sensuality of a beautiful woman's body...but it doesn't "Make" me a man. Neither does denying and avoiding the beauty and sexual-sensuality of the woman's form make me "more human than human"... It's a paralax. A matter of perspective....

OK...
Now I'm preaching. I just hope you see what I'm getting at.
Nature & Nurture?
Chicken or the Egg?
Melody or Harmony?

Yes!

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

I think that the root of the "Nature or Nurture" question is a motivation to validate our own points of view and negate those of others.

IF it's "Nature"...then the homosexual community (mostly just the activist types) has their iron clad validation and shunting the "Morality" arguments of the far right.

IF it's "Nurture"...then it can be overcome, it's genesis can be claimed to be nothing further than behavioral...and therefore can be overcome JUST as easily as it can be taken up..... THUS giving the "Moral Majority" types...(mostly just the activist types) their iron clad validation that homosexuality can and must be 'overcome' and shunts the arguments of the homosexual community.

Thing is:
A: Like my brother Robert said, it doesn't matter as it's an individuals issue.
B: Like I've said, the answer just isn't that simple. Not at all.

Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Let's define "nurture." In doing so we can not simply say it is the environment that the child is reared in. The environment encompasses that physical space the fetus and child occupy in progressing towards maturity, and doesn't merely consist of those social factors the child encounters subsequent to birth. Nurture, let us say, is the social interaction the child has between parents and others in his life. The word "environment" encompasses both the nature and nurture definitions.

Let's look at the fetal environment.

The fetus's environment can be assaulted, for example, by the administration of diethylstibestrol. This non-estradiol hormone was prescribed to pregnant women from 1938-1971, before it was found to cause increased genital abnormalities in male offspring...as well as showing a clear correlation with homosexuality in male children. It had other complications as well, and was finally yanked from the market.

A mother's antibodies might adversly influence the child's sexual orientation. Male homosexuals often (more often than is typical of the general population) have male older brothers. One theory postulates that a mother's antibody response to the first child's androgens subsequently influences the second son's development by binding up his testosterone during key phases of fetal growth. While the overall "maleness" of the child might not be effected, the sexual orientation of the child might well be.

If we suggest that homosexuality is caused merely by the social influences of society, then we must ask why gay males often have different fingerprint patterns than those of straight males. Gay male fingerprint patterns more typically match those of heterosexual women. As fingerprints are formed the 16th week in the womb, this suggests a genetic influence...or possibly an in-utero infuence similar to those described above.

One wonders why gay males tend to be smaller as adults and have a lower birth weight than the typical heterosexual male. How is this influenced by the nurturance, or lack thereof, of the family? Currently I teach a nine year old who is extraordinarily effeminate (four out of five such children turn out gay) and he can not do a sit up and is atypically weak and small...weaker in fact than the girls his age. He is a second son, and his brother is strong and athletic.

We must also look at the finger length ratios of many lesbians, which differ from heterosexual women and pattern after those of males (both gay and straight), and ask how such physical differences are accounted for by how the lesbian was reared. Social explanations are not easily forthcoming.

We must ask ourselves why gay males are more often left handed than heterosexuals as a group...and why their anterior commisures in their brains are sized more like those of women, and why their brain patterns mimic those of women. Why, for instance, do gay men navigate like women, using landmarks rather than the global referencing used by straight males? Is this attributable to some flaw in rearing? Or do we consider map reading methodology a correlation of a moral failing?

What of those children born intersexual? By these I mean they have various forms of noticeable hermaphroditism...they may be genetically female, but have what appears to be a penis and undescended testicles, or they may be genetically male and have what appears to be a vulva, or a penis that is malformed to the point of being somewhere between a vulva and a penis.

They might be born with an ovary and a testicle...or gonads that are part ovary, part testicle. How do we raise them? Do we raise them in accordance with their chromosomal profile? If so, what then if they're sexual orientation and sexual identity is opposite of that which we've determined? Can we easily condemn a child for their sexual orientation when it isn't so clear as to what they were in the first place?

We seek simplicity in our increasingly complex world. Sexually categorizing people is, at first blush, a simple thing to do. We look to the genitals and therein lies the answer...we think. Human sexuality, however, is far too complex to so easily pigeonhole our passions.

Even among those strictly heterosexual we find a diversity of interests that range from strange to the boringly familiar; from the popular to the perverse. Sexual tastes--particularly in America--are as varied as hair color and skin tone and height. The simplicity that we seek isn't forthcoming, now matter how we yearn for it...though we sadly find that condemnation is always readily at hand. If we can't level the population to our standard, we can cast vitriol. It is far easier than empathy, and for some, preferable to thinking.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Bammx2]

a different possibilty all together........

What if REINCARNATION actually exsists?

Some people believe that when you are reborn into a new life,there is this "gender switching" that can take place.
Some say you can try and hold on to to the things that brought you the most happiness in a past life....or the most comfort..??
Could that be a possiblilty?

Like it or not...
there ARE some things science can not explain

 

[Loki]

I've often argued here that homosexuality is "hardwired," but after reading LeVay I accept that the environment can play a role...the level and lasting impact of environmental influence is unclear.

I also argued often that it's hardwired by hormones during pregnancy (as is brain sexualization), but any arguments positing a significant environmental influence are new to me. Could you elaborate?

~ Loki

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I also argued often that it's hardwired by hormones during pregnancy (as is brain sexualization), but any arguments positing a significant environmental influence are new to me. Could you elaborate?

~ Loki

52% of identical twins of homosexuals are themselve homosexual. This suggests that something other than genetics plays a role in influencing homosexuality. However; that influence might be the pre-natal environment as you suggest and as I've mentioned. That said, one can not dismiss social influences until that time that stronger biological evidence is presented.

While I can accept some "nurture" factors, I tend towards the "hardwire" explanation or the in-utero influence of various stressors.

On the other hand, it could be the work of Satan and his seduction of our souls. But I kind of doubt it.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Ray]

52% of identical twins of homosexuals are themselve homosexual.

Steven, I suck at math. Are you saying that if I pick 100 individuals that happen to be one of a pair of twins, that 52% of those individuals have twin brothers that are homsexual also?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Are these identical twins raised together or apart?
Are the results statistically significant?
Has there been an independent review of the research methodology--looking at, for example, what identifies people as homosexual?

Studies like this are extremely susceptible to, well, bad methodology.

I say again--why would anybody think that there's any such thing as normalcy to measure this against, given what "heterosexuality's" like? I mean, have you ever thought about the implications of the fact that there's a lotta guys who like to get together with their buddies, get off while watching strippers, and watch each other pay for lap dances?

I mean--viewed askew, that is just so gay....

 

[MisterMike]

I've heard that you can't tell what a homosexual looks like but now there are studies you can tell by looking at their hands?

What about the lisp thing? Is that another genetic give-away? Or is it more of a nurture thing. I know when I used to hang around with a lot of Polish immigrants I would catch myself picking up an accent back in middle school so maybe that's an aquired thing, along with an eye for interior design.

I can understand that such a persecuted group would look for some biological explanation to justify their behavior but some of this is a stretch. Especially genetics, something we probably shouldn't be medling in anyways.

"We're here, we're queer!" OK, big deal. Now go home cuz I don't really care.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If anything proves my point....

 

[Makalakumu]

Are these identical twins raised together or apart?
Are the results statistically significant?
Has there been an independent review of the research methodology--looking at, for example, what identifies people as homosexual?

Studies like this are extremely susceptible to, well, bad methodology.

I say again--why would anybody think that there's any such thing as normalcy to measure this against, given what "heterosexuality's" like? I mean, have you ever thought about the implications of the fact that there's a lotta guys who like to get together with their buddies, get off while watching strippers, and watch each other pay for lap dances?

I mean--viewed askew, that is just so gay....

I think we may be saying similar things in this discussion. The realm of human sexual behavior is vast. We have sex for many reasons beyond just reproduction. Where (and why) do we draw these lines regarding "normal" sexual behavior? People who have sex with those of the same sex, have sex for the same reasons that the people who have sex with the opposite.

 

[michaeledward]

OK ... here are my two cents, which I was desperately trying to hold on to ....

Mostly, agreeing with the snippets of rmcrobertson, 'what does it matter'?

Why don't we try a little thought experiment:

If you are straight, after you read this, next time you are in a public place, look about the room, notice the attractiveness of a person of the same gender, the way he (or she) is groomed, dressed, and accessorized. Next imagine you are alone with that person. Imagine an increased the level of intimacy. Imagine touching and kissing that person in a loving sexual manner. Follow this thought experiment as far as you are comfortable, maybe just a bit further than your comfort zone.

At some point, you may come to the conclusion that being attracted to a person of the same gender may not be a 'choice'.

If you are gay, just follow the above example with a person of the opposite gender.

Enjoy.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Steven, I suck at math. Are you saying that if I pick 100 individuals that happen to be one of a pair of twins, that 52% of those individuals have twin brothers that are homsexual also?

No. Out of a population of twins studied wherein one brother identified himself as homosexual, the other also identified himself as homosexual 52% of the time.

A write up on the Baily and Pillard study that found this concordance:

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

To answer Rober's question, I believe they were raised together. Twin studies have an increasingly difficult time finding twins raised apart due to improved economic conditions. Twins aren't split up for adoption as often.

Are the results statistically significant...uh...yes. That would be considered quite significant given that the general homosexual population constitutes 2-4% of the overall population. We find similar rates of concordance for autism and schizophrenia among monozygotic twins.

Is the methodology flawed? To a degree, if I recall LeVay's review of it. It, and other studies point to a significant concordance in any case.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Brother John]

No. Out of a population of twins studied wherein one brother identified himself as homosexual, the other also identified himself as homosexual 52% of the time.

Are the results statistically significant...uh...yes. That would be considered quite significant given that the general homosexual population constitutes 2-4% of the overall population.

Steve-
How many people participate in this study? That might make a difference toward determining the 'significance', I'd think.
Your Brother
John

 

[rmcrobertson]

They may indeed point that way. But without a clear description of a study (for example, what exactly did they ask the sibs?), with a flawed methodology, with no presentation of statistical analysis of data, without even a stated number of study participants, I'd be vewy vewy wary.

There've been a lot of these sorts of studies out lately. Remember the, "prayer helps you heal," claptrap from a couple months ago?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Steve-
How many people participate in this study? That might make a difference toward determining the 'significance', I'd think.
Your Brother
John

110 pairs of male twins were selected by Bailey and Pillard, of which they knew at least one of the twins was gay. A small sample, indeed...but understandable given that twins are a minority, gays are a minority, and finding the combination of both for a study might be a tad difficult.

The authors acknowledge that one flaw of the methodology is the way they recruited participants--they advertised in Gay magazines. They feel this might have skewed the results. They felt that Gays might have first considered whether their twin was Gay or not before electing to join the study.

So Bailey did another study in Australia with a far larger sample of 5,000 twins (apparently they have a huge twin registry down under) and found the concordance more like 20%. They found that gender non-comformity in childhood is highly heritable...and that, as I've mentioned, has a strong correlation with sexual preference in later years.

So...the 52% figure is not current, as I've just discovered in researching this.


The link to an informative PDF file is below. It contains a wealth of current research. FWIW, the Northwestern search engine seems to yield a bunch of stuff. You might try typing in a keyword of interest to see what pops up.


http://search.northwestern.edu/cs.h...df&qt=Bailey,+et.+al,+twins&col=nwu&n=2&la=en



Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nice one; thanks.

 

[Kenpodoc]

The next question is does the strong social pressure against gay behavior cause twin studies to underestimate the genetic concordance?

jeff

 

[hardheadjarhead]

An article talking about the heritability factor of various behaviors and traits...including sexuality. I found it while looking up the Bailey studies:

http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/personality/897.html

Many of us will be loathe to admit we have much in common with our parents. As I age, though, I start to make more and more connections between their personalities and mine (and my older sister, to her dismay, is turning into our mother...which I never hesitate to tell her. I'm such a sadist.)

That said, we're each our own individual. Genes influence...they don't always determine to a "T" what we'll be.


Regards,


Steve