Biology of sexual orientation

[Gnosital]

This is a little bit on the sensationalist side (because that's just how news programs roll), but the references to the actual research are worthwhile and the research (even though it's more social psych than biological) is solid.

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight

I'm planning to put up a couple of posts in this thread (as soon as I get them finished) that I've adapted from my physiology of behavior lectures on sexual differentiation and biology of sexual orientation and species-typical sexual behavior.

I promised Snap I'd do that a couple of months ago, and lately Cal's rhetoric has inspired me to build a reference thread for sexual orientation questions.

So I'm starting it with this. I will add more later.

[calpurnpiso]

Well, the fact is we humans are bisexual by nature. Our sexual preference is tied to genes. Sex is an appetite/urge just like food. When we are hungry we EAT whatever we find including Rat thermidor. The reason is we are OMNIVOROUS. If a cow is starving, can we feed it STEAK?. Bovines are not omnivorous as are many other animals, they only eat certain foods, we humans are not limited.

A clue to our bisexuality by nature are the tits on men and clits ( little penises) on women. Some genetic mutations affect sexual orientation but the fact is that during adolescence men and women experiment with their own sex, unless they are immerse in religious-psychosis anguish, the illness causing great guilt disturbing the normal path/program established by nature.

The fact is that males can place their joy sticks in ANY good looking male of female and obtain gratification. The mentally healthy aka atheist been the ONLY one that could truly enjoy it, since the burden of religious-psychosis induced guilt is not present. The sexual preference when is exclusively on the same sex while experiencing a revolting feeling for the opposite sex indicates true homosexuality which is, like been born left handed or allergic to certain foods, as natural as water is wet.

Religious psychosis have a problem with this, since they believe an invisible friend zapped everything into existence. What these delusional retards do not realize is that in the beginning ( according to many religious beliefs including that of the Egyptians which is the oldest ) it was a PENIS-CHRIST ( Atun) who by masturbating created EVERYTHING. Sex is the #1 element in ALL religious belief systems and is equated with the STARS interacting with mother EARTH. Primitive humans made the connection between planting a seed on the earth, and the penis spilling its river of life (MILK) on a cave of creation. Vagina.

Humans natural bisexuality is constantly demonstrated in our libido appeasing desires hidden deeply in our sub-conscience. It is not healthy eating patte de fois grass, lobster everyday, as it is not healthy either the everyday eating of hot dogs. Cultures are responsible superficially for choosing our sexual partners, while our genes deep inside dictate our preference.
AHHH..it is great to be omnivorous with a healthy mind, aka atheist, one will never starve and feel guilty for eating "forbidden fruits" which can be very tasty...........:lol::lol:

[nkb]

Sorry, Cal, but I'm not buying your argument about humans' natural bisexuality.

Isn't that the equivalent of saying that men, by nature, are breastfeeders, because they have nipples?

nkb wrote

Sorry, Cal, but I'm not buying your argument about humans' natural bisexuality.

Isn't that the equivalent of saying that men, by nature, are breastfeeders, because they have nipples?

That's not a true comparison, because men are not natural cannot truly breastfeed a young one, while we can enjoy ourselves through any orifice.

A better contrarian argument would have been "Does that mean that men are naturally bestialitists since they can sex a sheep?"

[nkb]

snap crafter wrote

That's not a true comparison, because men are not natural cannot truly breastfeed a young one, while we can enjoy ourselves through any orifice.

A better contrarian argument would have been "Does that mean that men are naturally bestialitists since they can sex a sheep?"

Who said I was trying to make a true comparison?

I was attempting to take Cal's example to the extreme, to show the fallacy of his argument.

If you want to take the bestiality angle on Cal's hypothesis, be my guest. It also illustrates the leap in logic in his argument.

[Irreligious]

Interesting post, Gnosital. However, after watching this series of 60 Minutes clips, my one problem with the report is the apparent over-emphasis on masculine/feminine traits as it pertains to homosexual men.

Obviously, there are a lot feminine-acting men who are gay, but what about all the guys who are outwardly masculine, like sports and other macho things but who are also gay? They may not be the majority, but I do know a fair number of gay guys like that. Other than the fact that they like to chase and woo other guys, their outward behavior and other interests are virtually indistinguishable from many masculine straight guys I know. These are the gay guys who hated "Brokeback Mountain" for its sentimentality (and because it didn't have enough pounding male on male action for their tastes), who lack a decent fashion sense and who wouldn't know Jennifer Hudson from the Hudson River.

Of course, one 15-minute, TV news magazine report cannot explore all of the variations among homosexuals, but it's a bit disappointing that it focused mainly on the "extremes" in behavior that ostensibly distinguish gay people from straight people of the same gender. A fair number of us are a curious mixture of both extremes. I also have a kid brother who is gay (yes, 2 of us in the family!) who not only can tell you everything about "Dreamgirls the movie," but is equally adept at tracking individual and team statistics for the NFL, MLB and the NBA.

[nkb]

Irreligious wrote

Interesting post, Gnosital. However, after watching this series of 60 Minutes clips, my one problem with the report is the apparent over-emphasis on masculine/feminine traits as it pertains to homosexual men.

Obviously, there are a lot feminine-acting men who are gay, but what about all the guys who are outwardly masculine, like sports and other macho things but who are also gay? They may not be the majority, but I do know a fair number of gay guys like that. Other than the fact that they like to chase and woo other guys, their outward behavior and interests are indistinguishable from many masculine straight guys I know. These are the gay guys who hated "Brokeback Mountain" for its sentimentality (and because it didn't have enough pounding male on male action for their tastes), who lack a decent fashion sense and who wouldn't know Jennifer Hudson from the Hudson River.

Of course, one 15-minute, TV news magazine report cannot explore all of the variations among homosexuals, but it's a bit disappointing that it focused mainly on the "extremes" in behavior that ostensibly distinguish gay people from straight people of the same gender. A fair number of us are a curious mixture of both extremes. I also have a kid brother who is gay (yes, 2 of us in the family!) who not only can tell you everything about "Dreamgirls the movie," but is equally adept at tracking individual and team statistics for the NFL, MLB and NBA.

Really? I thought all gay men dress fashionably, squeal like little girls when they're excited, and say "fabulous" a lot. :P

[Irreligious]

nkb wrote

Really, I thought all gay men dress fashionably, squeal like little girls when they're excited, and say "fabulous" a lot.

I oughta scratch your eyes out, but I think I'll just slap you silly instead. :nanner:

[Gnosital]

calpurnpiso wrote

Well, the fact is we humans are bisexual by nature. Our sexual preference is tied to genes. ...........:lol::lol:

I had HOPED we could keep this thread more or less focused on actual science, but alas.

Cal, listen to me CAREFULLY, please.

The fact is that GENES do not control behavior, per se. GENES are merely recipes for PROTEINS.

PROTEINS are used by a cell to build and repair STRUCTURAL elements of the cell (microfilaments and tubules, cell channels, exchangers, and receptors for example) and CHEMICALS such as enzymes

CELL STRUCTURES and CHEMICALS keep the cell alive and provide mechanisms by which it can respond to changes in the extracellular environment that is affected by OTHER CELLS

CELLS form SYNAPTIC ASSEMBLIES that are both structural and functional in nature

SYNAPTIC ASSEMBLIES allow for formation of both local and long distance CELLULAR CIRCUITS

CELLULAR CIRCUITS allow for the interaction of large sections of BRAIN STRUCTURES

BRAIN STRUCTURES interact, effecting release of neurohormonal chemicals that enter the general circulation or are released directly onto TARGET ORGANS and MUSCLES

TARGET ORGANS and MUSCLES express BEHAVIORS


Even in this very abbreviated, off-the-top-of-my head illustration, you should be able to see that there are several ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE and ORGANIZATIONAL and ACTIVATIONAL FACTORS between GENES and BEHAVIOR.

[Gnosital]

nkb wrote

Sorry, Cal, but I'm not buying your argument about humans' natural bisexuality.

Isn't that the equivalent of saying that men, by nature, are breastfeeders, because they have nipples?

No, it isn't exactly the same thing. But with enough hormone manipulation, delivered at the right times, men COULD breastfeed.

It is absolutely true that every human conceptus is bisexual POTENTIALLY, in the same way that we can refer to a stem cell as being pluripotent.

Cal is purposefully not differentiating between physiologically bipotential embryonic tissue and bisexually oriented behavior in a sexually mature differentiated phenotype. In one case you have embryonic tissue that has not yet undergone differentiation into the birth phenotype, and in the other case, you have a fully developed phenotype that has acquired behavioral tendencies from a complicated interaction of physical and environmental factors over a period of many years.

[nkb]

Gnosital wrote

No, it isn't exactly the same thing. But with enough hormone manipulation, delivered at the right times, men COULD breastfeed.

It is absolutely true that every human conceptus is bisexual POTENTIALLY, in the same way that we can refer to a stem cell as being pluripotent.

Cal is purposefully not differentiating between physiologically bipotential embryonic tissue and bisexually oriented behavior in a sexually mature differentiated phenotype. In one case you have embryonic tissue that has not yet undergone differentiation into the birth phenotype, and in the other case, you have a fully developed phenotype that has acquired behavioral tendencies from a complicated interaction of physical and environmental factors over a period of many years.

I understand. I was trying to take it to the extreme to shoot down Cal's logic, but it wasn't my best work. :blush:

[Gnosital]

Irreligious wrote

Interesting post, Gnosital. However, after watching this series of 60 Minutes clips, my one problem with the report is the apparent over-emphasis on masculine/feminine traits as it pertains to homosexual men.

I totally agree, Irr. The news stuff naturally leans toward the yellow end of the journalistic spectrum, but I found this today and thought it was a good start to the thread. I especially liked the bit on "turning a rat gay" regarding Marc Breedlove's research, I have turned a few rats gay myself. (And I don’t mean former boyfriends, either, dammit!!). You'd be surprised at how easily one can manipulate the prenatal uterine environment to produce ambiguous genitalia, "feminine" males or "masculine" females.

Obviously the behavior of the feminized male rats was not analogous to stereotypic version of gay mannerisms presented in the 60 Minutes videos. Likewise, the fact that "macho" gay males exist is not evidence against the feminization of certain brain structures, simply because of the fact that those guys like to have sex with men.

Not that you mentioned it, but as for hormones, several studies now have found that gay males actually tend to have higher levels of circulating androgens than straight males, and since androgens are responsible for sexual interest (libido), that could account for the tendency for more frequent sex partners among SOME gay males, and I think it is plausible that high testosterone levels could account for “macho” behavior in gay males.

[Gnosital]

nkb wrote

I understand. I was trying to take it to the extreme to shoot down Cal's logic, but it wasn't my best work. :blush:

Sorry, I didn't read far enough to get the hyperbole before I responded !! My bad!!

I have also been accused of being a bit literal at times... it's not something I'm proud of....

:P

[calpurnpiso]

Gnosital wrote

I had HOPED we could keep this thread more or less focused on actual science, but alas.

Cal, listen to me CAREFULLY, please.

The fact is that GENES do not control behavior, per se. GENES are merely recipes for PROTEINS.

PROTEINS are used by a cell to build and repair STRUCTURAL elements of the cell (microfilaments and tubules, cell channels, exchangers, and receptors for example) and CHEMICALS such as enzymes

CELL STRUCTURES and CHEMICALS keep the cell alive and provide mechanisms by which it can respond to changes in the extracellular environment that is affected by OTHER CELLS

CELLS form SYNAPTIC ASSEMBLIES that are both structural and functional in nature

SYNAPTIC ASSEMBLIES allow for formation of both local and long distance CELLULAR CIRCUITS

CELLULAR CIRCUITS allow for the interaction of large sections of BRAIN STRUCTURES

BRAIN STRUCTURES interact, effecting release of neurohormonal chemicals that enter the general circulation or are released directly onto TARGET ORGANS and MUSCLES

TARGET ORGANS and MUSCLES express BEHAVIORS


Even in this very abbreviated, off-the-top-of-my head illustration, you should be able to see that there are several ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE and ORGANIZATIONAL and ACTIVATIONAL FACTORS between GENES and BEHAVIOR.

Well, sorry if I imply genes control behavior. What I attempted to say is that genes makes us what we are. They make us to have a propensity to: obesity, color of eyes, size of ears, susceptibility to illness etc etc. I did not invent the idea we are all bisexual by nature. This has been said by many scientists on the science and discovery channel. Thought the Genom project has been done, we still have many years ahead to learn how to put it into practice and use its information. People sometimes seems to ignore the BASICS which would reveal the whole picture of our biology and our connections to our world, preferring to look at at minutiae that can only give us a glimpse. I'm not a scientist but I know that I am a product of a male sperm and a female egg, ergo I have FEMALE and MALE chemicals (hormones). The dominance of one of those chemicals ( there is more to it than hormones) is what makes one a male or female. Then we have the structure and sex of the brain. My point is that not EVERYTHING is known about the brain, but the fact remains we humans are produced by the encounter of TWO universe type systems Sperm and egg. One must realize Scientists still are looking for the gay gene. Today they know there is such a thing as a male and female brain. The biology of sexual orientation is so complex scientists could be discussing it for decades specially when the Christ-psychotics "scientists" join in the discussion. :)

[nkb]

Gnosital,
OK, this may be some stupid questions, but your explanation triggered them, so it's your fault:

1. Do men have dormant mammary glands, which can be activated through the right combination of hormones? Or are you talking about hormones applied in the development cycle of the fetus? Or at some other stage?

2. Whether a fetus is male or female is determined by the chromosomes (XY and YY?), but the hormones are still required to develop things like genitalia, right? Trouble with the hormones is what causes hermaphrodites and such? Intelligent Design, my ass.

Please slap me down if I am being really stupid.