Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons

Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons
Thread Tools
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2006, 07:58 PM
 
"The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.

The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.

The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay."

Just to start things off before any strongly religious person says there is no proof that genetics have anything to do with being gay you also have to acknowledge there is no proof of God.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiol...gay_genes.html

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2006, 08:04 PM
 
So being gay is like male pattern balding?
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2006, 08:53 PM
 
Hmmm... not sure which I'd prefer... gay or balding (currently balding).
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2006, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
Just to start things off before any strongly religious person says there is no proof that genetics have anything to do with being gay you also have to acknowledge there is no proof of God.
Um, most Christians acknowledge that.

But thanks for bringing religion into this in the first post.
     
KeriVit
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In the South
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2006, 09:13 PM
 
This just reminds me of something. My lil bro (OK, half-bro- same dad) is 17. I think he might me gay. If he is, my parents will shoot me and blame it on me.

Both of our Moms are a lil off kilter tho. Dad is a Testerone machine. Hmmm. moms, ya, that's it. Dad, stop marrying gays chix.!!!
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2006, 10:25 PM
 
"I thought being gay was a choice." - Meg
"Only for women" - Meg's gay girlfriend

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor
So being gay is like male pattern balding?
Seems that way. But many always thought so.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 12:32 AM
 
So 23% of the women in the study with at least 2 gay sons had the same X chromosome inactivated, while the other 77% of the same women with at least 2 gay sons showed nothing unusual at all. And only 13% of women with 1 gay son had the same X chromosome inactivated while 87% of the same women with 1 gay son showed nothing unusual at all.

Doesn't this disprove the theory? At the very least they should have tested more than ~200 women before publishing their results.
(it is an interesting find though)
( Last edited by greenamp; Feb 25, 2006 at 12:41 AM. )
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 01:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
So 23% of the women in the study with at least 2 gay sons had the same X chromosome inactivated, while the other 77% of the same women with at least 2 gay sons showed nothing unusual at all. And only 13% of women with 1 gay son had the same X chromosome inactivated while 87% of the same women with 1 gay son showed nothing unusual at all.

Doesn't this disprove the theory?
Having just read it after you posted this, I came to the same conclusion.

I could be wrong though. But then again it wouldn't be the first article SWG has posted in the lounge and got the whole thing completely wrong.
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
So 23% of the women in the study with at least 2 gay sons had the same X chromosome inactivated, while the other 77% of the same women with at least 2 gay sons showed nothing unusual at all. And only 13% of women with 1 gay son had the same X chromosome inactivated while 87% of the same women with 1 gay son showed nothing unusual at all.

Doesn't this disprove the theory? At the very least they should have tested more than ~200 women before publishing their results.
(it is an interesting find though)
I think the idea is that having >1 gay son is correlated with the unusual single-X deactivation as opposed to the standard random-X deactivation. Implying that if there's a (suite of) gene(s) that codes for higher likelihood of homosexuality, then it is highly compatible or the same as a gene that causes the unusual X deactivation. The comparison is more important across the two mom populations than within one.

Also, remember that real geneticists don't conceive of a "gay gene" the way most people would, i.e. an all-or-nothing, you've-got-it-and-you're-gay gene. If there is a genetic component to sexual orientation, it's something like a gene which, in the presence of the right additional genes and environmental factors, greatly increases its carrier's probability of being gay.

Anyway, I think I get why they think their results have some significance, but I won't be taking statistics 'til this summer. Hopefully a medical or scientific professional can chime in to address their methods.

As for opinions: Intuitively, it seems likely to me that there is a hereditary/genetic component to sexuality, and I think it is completely acceptable to try and scientifically determine whether that's true. Ethical questions only arise from what to do with the knowledge.

And anybody who thinks there's anything morally or ethically wrong with being gay or with gay sex is a backwards moron.
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 04:16 AM
 
There was a study about 8 years ago iirc that demonstrated an "abnormality" in the structure of aural canal that appears to be very significantly more common in lesbians.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
CollinG3G4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 04:49 AM
 
... the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.

Is it really such a crazy idea?

Genes code for a specfic unit of chemical expression. An extra copy of the gene here and there may create an implmance, to much or to little a chemical creating an abnormality in a specfic area durring the developmental process. Not to mention enviormential factors.

It may be fair to say that genes influence, but are not the single determining factor when considering matters of homosexuality among individuals in most cases.
( Last edited by CollinG3G4; Feb 25, 2006 at 04:56 AM. )
     
Hugi
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 06:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by wolfen
There was a study about 8 years ago iirc that demonstrated an "abnormality" in the structure of aural canal that appears to be very significantly more common in lesbians.
Well naturally that's because of all the aural sex, silly.
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by CollinG3G4
... the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.

Is it really such a crazy idea?

Genes code for a specfic unit of chemical expression. An extra copy of the gene here and there may create an implmance, to much or to little a chemical creating an abnormality in a specfic area durring the developmental process. Not to mention enviormential factors.

It may be fair to say that genes influence, but are not the single determining factor when considering matters of homosexuality among individuals in most cases.
Agreed. That said, I think the big reason why the genetic "excuse" is so popular is that it means that "nobody is to blame" sure in the end you're saying all gay people are mutants and what not, but whatever. Then we can say that it's like your race or something. When we think of it as the culmination of factors, or as partially or wholly psychological it makes it seem as if the person should then be "fixable" or something.
It's unfortunate really that so many emotions are tied up in it, it's an interesting problem, but a lot of valid questions don't get asked, or the answers aren't displayed publicly because of the irrational notions of a lot of very loud activists.
I have no problem accepting that certain genes are probably more common among homosexual people vs. heterosexual people. The problem is when we assume that there is just one gene that makes someone gay. Or when we ignore that genes even when they influence personality traits and what not are still able to be curbed and what not. So to suggest that someone was simply born that way is generally far too simplistic.
But I guess that makes some people feel better... so we do it.
     
bboisvert
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cadaver
Hmmm... not sure which I'd prefer... gay or balding (currently balding).
sux when you have both
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
Agreed. That said, I think the big reason why the genetic "excuse" is so popular is that it means that "nobody is to blame" sure in the end you're saying all gay people are mutants and what not, but whatever.
Actually, it has more to do with the fact it more accurately describes what most of us experienced than the other, commonly-claimed theory -- that it is a choice. Or what you call being to blame. That really is the only relevance of the issue.

The fact is, it's not a choice. Whether it is genetic, or whether the mechanism is some other combination of factors (maybe hormonal in the womb, or whatever other theories there are) makes little difference. Most gay people report exactly the same kind of choice in their sexuality as most heterosexuals. That is to say, none whatsoever.

The reason this matters is because first it's just damned annoying to have people tell you that you made a choice and then to condemn you for it and take rights away from you when you know full well you never had a choice. Imagine someone telling you that you don't deserve full rights or respect as a human being because you "chose" to be short -- or tall, or left handed, or red headed, or because you have earlobes (or not). Just because someone else wants to condemn you doesn't make their assertions accurate. It certainly doesn't make them rational. And frankly, the only people qualified to say whether being gay is a choice or not are gay people themselves.

Second, of course, claiming being gay is a choice ties in with all the silly arguments about gays recruiting (or seducing) people into being gay. If something is a choice, then there is an argument to try to protect someone from that "choice." But if it is something perfectly natural and innate to a small percentage of human beings, that argument makes no sense. In fact, the only argument that makes sense is simply to accept the reality that some people, for whatever reason, simply are gay.

As for being mutants, a genetic cause for homosexuality no more makes a gay person a mutant than does a genetic cause for left handedness, red hair, or the ability to roll your tongue. People come in all sorts of variations, some of which are indeed genetic in origin.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 09:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Second, of course, claiming being gay is a choice ties in with all the silly arguments about gays recruiting (or seducing) people into being gay.
I have personally known gay people that go out of their way to try to "seduce straight boys" as they claim.

One even said he wont date gay men. That he can make any straight guy "gay" with a little bit of alcohol and some lesbian porn.

So yes, there are gays that are turned on by such "recruiting"

Much like I have heard black men talk about getting "white women" as a badge of sexual coolness, I hear the same thing coming from gay men about straight males.
     
tthmaz
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 09:56 PM
 
Wow... That's what I call news!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
One even said he wont date gay men. That he can make any straight guy "gay" with a little bit of alcohol and some lesbian porn.
Far be it from men to exaggerate their sexual prowess.

I imagine it wouldn't work with you, which makes the "any" claim seem a bit ridiculous.

Sounds like these friends are more into playing sexual mind games, rather than making an honest statement about their (or anyone else's) biology.

Edit: I think if you cornered them, they would likely tell you their targets are delusional about their heterosexuality, rather successful "conversions".

Could be wrong though. Wouldn't be the first time.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
I imagine it wouldn't work with you, which makes the "any" claim seem a bit ridiculous.
Oh I am sure he was bragging.
Sounds like these friends are more into playing sexual mind games, rather than making an honest statement about their (or anyone else's) biology.
Naw, he said he honestly PREFERS straight guys. Maybe it's a fetish?
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 03:13 AM
 
I can understand your argument Slimy but a psychological cause is no more a choice than a genetic cause. Either way any gay man consciously has to chose that they are going to either go with or against what they really want to do. So do straight people, the only advantage they have is that nearly everyone else makes the same choice.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
I have personally known gay people that go out of their way to try to "seduce straight boys" as they claim.

One even said he wont date gay men. That he can make any straight guy "gay" with a little bit of alcohol and some lesbian porn.

So yes, there are gays that are turned on by such "recruiting"

Much like I have heard black men talk about getting "white women" as a badge of sexual coolness, I hear the same thing coming from gay men about straight males.
I think you know some people who have personal issues. I have also known some gay men (or at least one I can think of off the top of my head) who claimed not to be attracted to "gay" men. What he meant was he didn't like queenyness. That's not uncommon. Take a look at any set of gay personals ads and you will see lots of ads by or for people claiming to be "straight acting." Lots of people don't like or want to be flamboyant.

However, that one friend of mine took it a step further because basically, he was a closet case who had a difficult time admitting he was gay. So he wanted to meet other "straight" men who also wanted to have sex with a "straight" man like him. Any independent observer would have said the guy was gay and wanted to date other gay men.

The real question on this seduced to be gay issue isn't to ask gay men what they fantasize about doing and to whom, it is to ask them who it was recruited or seduced them to be gay. In order to validate the "recruited" theory, you need to find that gay men were in fact recruited. I think the answer will be universal. Nobody did, and nobody was. Gay men report always having these feelings, just as straight men always have their feelings. It's part of who you are from as far back as you can remember. That is why it is not a choice.


Women, however, I think may be somewhat different. I don't know any men who have genuinely floated between heterosexuality and homosexuality, or vice versa. With us it seems to be hard-wired and not a product of choice at all. But with women, sexuality seems to be more fluid. In fact, most of the self-professed lesbians I know are functually bisexual. At least, that is how it seems to me and they seem happy.

Salty: you are making the same mistake Kinsey did. I am not talking about what a person does, I am talking about what a person innately is attracted to. What defines being gay is not who you have sex with, it is what gender you find yourself attracted to. it is what goes on between your ears that defines sexuality, not what goes on between your legs. Of course, gay men can make the choice to be celebate. And of course they could choose to go against their orientation and have sex with a gender other than the one they are attracted to. But that is not choosing whether or not to be gay any more than a heterosexual who chooses to be celebate is choosing not to be heterosexual. Celebacy is not asexuality.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Feb 26, 2006 at 11:07 AM. )
     
yakkiebah
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dar al-Harb
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 11:26 AM
 
My theory is that people who think it is a choice are closet cases. Because if you're hetero(or homo) you're pretty sure about your preference, you don't choose.
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Salty: you are making the same mistake Kinsey did. I am not talking about what a person does, I am talking about what a person innately is attracted to. What defines being gay is not who you have sex with, it is what gender you find yourself attracted to. it is what goes on between your ears that defines sexuality, not what goes on between your legs.
Sez you. I mean I understand what you're getting at, and certainly for the sake of the biological question, innate attraction is what's important. But there's no obvious reason to say that feelings of attraction are exactly what defines orientation, to the exclusion of behavior. I mean, as a thought experiment: if a man is attracted to men all his life, but has several girlfriends before getting married and having kids, never has any sexual contact with men, and never tells anyone nor writes in a journal that he fantasizes exclusively about men, is he gay? I think I'd answer that question differently depending on when you ask me.

What I think is interesting about the whole wired-sexuality debate is that a lot of folks are going to insist it's true because it seems a good way of getting others to accept the variety of orientations: it's just how we are and we can't help it. Of course many of these same people who insist it's genetic don't want us to learn the genetic basis because they're afraid (and not completely unfoundedly) that people may use such a discovery to find a "cure" for "non-standard" orientations..

I think the important thing that gets left out of the Choice-vs-Hardwired debate is that it has no bearing on the ethical one. Even if it turns out (yeah, right) that everyone has as much control over their sexuality as what they eat for breakfast, there's still nothing wrong with choosing homosexuality.

... ask them who it was recruited or seduced them to be gay. In order to validate the "recruited" theory, you need to find that gay men were in fact recruited. I think the answer will be universal. Nobody did, and nobody was. Gay men report always having these feelings...
Excellent point, Simey.
     
mchladek
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 12:13 PM
 
Back to the original article posted. I really dislike when journalists condense a scientific article down to a pop media article. They are leaving out two extremely important points:
  1. They do not state how "gay" was operationalized. Were these self-identified gay men? Was it based on past behaviors or personality? Were these volunteer subjects or were they systematically recruited? Agency is a huge confounder in studies on social phenomenon.
  2. I really dislike how many people take a correlational study like this and try to make a case for causality out of it. These two variables may be correlated but there are scores of confounding variables and potential mediators/moderators that may account for the relationship between the mother's genetics and her son's sexual orientation.

As a social constructionist, I really disagree with this whole search for the "gay gene". It's absurd to think that something as basic and primitive as a gene can determine how society interprets same-sex behavior and how a person comes to identify with a sexual orientation within the framework of this societal and cultural interpretation. More clearly, genes may determine skin color, but our society defines what it means to be black, white, brown, red, or yellow. Our white-as-normative society makes white the default race to which other races are unfortunately compared. Similarly, genes may determine sex, but society tells us what those sex organs mean to our gender. Our society is what tells little boys they shouldn't dress up in their mom's clothes or put on makeup because those are "girl things". And so, genes may determine sexual orientation (the proclivity to be attracted to the same sex), but our society creates the gay/straight duality and forces people to identify one way or the other. And when someone does identify a certain way, society tells him/her what that identity means and how s/he may act in accordance to that identity.

Simey: You don't know any men who can float between a hetero and homosexual orientation? Well, hello. My name is Michael and most people would label me as bisexual. I have dated men in the past and now I've been in a happy, fulfilling relationship with a woman for a year and a half. Probably about 90% of the people I am attracted to are men though and if my girlfriend and I ever did split up, I would probably date men again since I'm attracted to many more men than women.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by mchladek
Simey: You don't know any men who can float between a hetero and homosexual orientation? Well, hello. My name is Michael and most people would label me as bisexual. I have dated men in the past and now I've been in a happy, fulfilling relationship with a woman for a year and a half. Probably about 90% of the people I am attracted to are men though and if my girlfriend and I ever did split up, I would probably date men again since I'm attracted to many more men than women.
I don't deny the existence of bisexuality, but that isn't what we are talking about. I have never met a man who has gone from being homosexual to heterosexual, or vice versa and who wasn't simply deluding himself or where others weren't just judging from outward appearances.* In other words, you don't flip from one end of the Kinsey scale to the other just because of who you sleep with.

Now, if you happen to be somewhere near the middle of the Kinsey scale, that is, a bisexual, then that is different. Bisexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is not something attempting to masquerade as something else, in the same way as a homosexual trying to be a heterosexual would be (or vice versa).

The crucial difference is what you point out -- the part about being in a fulfilling relationship. Anyone can get into a relationship with someone else regardless of gender. But in order for it to be a fulfilling relationship, it really has to be with someone you are attracted to on an innate level. For that to happen, the relationship needs to be in accord with your orientation, and for the vast majority of us, that is either heterosexual or homosexual and very much an either/or thing. For a smaller percentage, the orientation is bisexuality, so for people like you a fulfilling relationship with either gender is possible. However, bisexuality among men seems to be much less common, and again, not something you can choose to be or not to be. You either are or you are not, and whether you are or not is involuntary.




* This answers slugslugslug's point - outward appearances of hetrosexuality don't make a heterosexual. His example is of a homosexual who happens to be in an opposite-sex relationship. It not an uncommon scenario, but rarely a completely happy one.
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by mchladek
They do not state how "gay" was operationalized. Were these self-identified gay men? Was it based on past behaviors or personality? Were these volunteer subjects or were they systematically recruited? Agency is a huge confounder in studies on social phenomenon.
From the paper in Human Genetics
The sample of 200 women consisted of 40 previously reported mothers of 2 or more gay sons, of whom 4 had 3 gay sons and one had 4 gay sons (Hamer et al. 1993; Hu et al. 1995); 57 newly recruited mothers of whom 4 had 2 gay sons and 53 had 1 gay son and 103 control women who did not report having homosexual children (Sabol et al. 1999). No detailed sexual behavior or attitude data was collected on the children of control mothers. Participants signed an informed consent approved by the NCI IRB prior to donating blood for DNA extraction. Sexual orientation of the gay sons was assessed through the Kinsey scales of sexual attraction, fantasy, behavior and self-identification, which range from 0 for exclusively heterosexual to 6 for exclusively homosexual. The gay sons had an average score of 5.65±0.48 (mean±SD).
Originally Posted by mchladek
And so, genes may determine sexual orientation (the proclivity to be attracted to the same sex)...
Well, then, that's an empirical question. Are you saying it's neither worthwhile nor interesting to try and find its answer? If so, why? You certainly don't seem to be a committed social constructionist on that issue, and I think that's a good thing, since it's far from settled. Social construction is certainly true about a lot of things, but it'd silly to hold to it a priori for a question that may actually be answered.
but our society creates the gay/straight duality and forces people to identify one way or the other. And when someone does identify a certain way, society tells him/her what that identity means and how s/he may act in accordance to that identity.
Well, okay, then that's the puzzle for the sociologists to tackle. You would think that by now, society would be accepting enough of homosexuality to start getting used to a whole range of sexual identities and only stigmatize nonconsensual sex. But perhaps fear and suspicion of unusual behaviors are genetically influenced in some folks.

I can certainly sympathize for you as a bisexual, since you probably get discrimination from both sides. A lot of folks probably assume you're lucky to have a maximal playing field, but there'll always be that anti-bi bias among your potential partners of either sex.. At least you don't have to worry about it for now.

Edit: Oh, by the way, yes I have access to the paper, but it would be an immoral violation of somebody's intellectual property rights to share it, so please don't PM me to ask for a copy if you're interested in reading it.
( Last edited by slugslugslug; Feb 26, 2006 at 12:54 PM. )
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 12:49 PM
 
Back to Simey: I've heard said that many bisexuals are physically attracted to both sexes roughly equally but tend to form their fulfilling relationships with members of one sex almost exclusively... I don't really know from experience. Most of the men I know who have claimed to be bi, I don't believe (that is, I think they're straight but in their circles it's cooler to be queer so they talk up having crushes on boys).
     
mchladek
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 12:57 PM
 
Simey, Sorry I misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

Slug, You're right. I'm not at all opposed to investigating and looking for a "gay gene". I'm just saying we have to look at the big picture and keep in mind that we reflexively create identity and assign meaning to biology. I'm an open-minded social constructionist As a psychology student, I'm very weary of drawying causal links between genes and human behavior because humans are such social creatures.
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 01:07 PM
 
Yeah, I'm wary of drawing links too strongly and of failing to remind people often enough that "a gene for behavior x" means "a gene whose presence, all other things being equal, is significantly correlated with proclivity to perform behavior x, which correlation may or may not involve a causal path from gene to behavior". Still, given that people are animals, it seems vanishingly improbable that there are no causal links from genes to behavior. Here's where I'm right with you: it's also vanishingly improbable that any such causal link can't be modulated by environment/culture/what-have-you..
     
wdlove
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 04:38 PM
 
We just need to have some more research.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." Winston Churchill
     
Binarymix
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
I can understand your argument Slimy but a psychological cause is no more a choice than a genetic cause. Either way any gay man consciously has to chose that they are going to either go with or against what they really want to do. So do straight people, the only advantage they have is that nearly everyone else makes the same choice.

You don't have a choice on what you are sexually attracted to. Sure I could date women, but I would never get turned on by them, it's not possible, just like you could force yourself to date a man, but you wouldnt become sexually attracted to him. Sorry, learn to live with that.
     
Binarymix
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
I have personally known gay people that go out of their way to try to "seduce straight boys" as they claim.

One even said he wont date gay men. That he can make any straight guy "gay" with a little bit of alcohol and some lesbian porn.

So yes, there are gays that are turned on by such "recruiting"

Just like straight pedophiles go out of their way to seduce children, doesnt make it any less disgusting, but not all straights are that way are they?
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 05:33 PM
 
I bet some people could train themselves to be attracted something new or different, probably by a very similar process by which many folks learn to like the taste of beer or coffee. On the other hand, it's probably impossible for most people and extremely difficult for those who could manage it. And in the end, probably not worth the effort, unless one is training oneself to stop being sexually attracted to children or animals. Even then, it's probably more worthwhile to just train oneself not to act on such tendencies.

Making yourself like beer and/or coffee, on the other hand, has obvious advantages. Mmmm, coffee....
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 01:25 AM
 
By the way not everyone who thinks it's a choice are closet cases. It's a very common misconception among Christians that it's something that people just chose to do right down to the attraction. I once asked a guy in dorm if he honestly thought anyone would chose to be attracted to other men knowing that it would result in them being rejected by so many people? He looked at me like he'd never even thought about it before.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
By the way not everyone who thinks it's a choice are closet cases. It's a very common misconception among Christians that it's something that people just chose to do right down to the attraction. I once asked a guy in dorm if he honestly thought anyone would chose to be attracted to other men knowing that it would result in them being rejected by so many people? He looked at me like he'd never even thought about it before.
Really, the opinions of any straight people on this question of whether or not gay people experience a choice are irrelevant. This isn't animal psychology. It's human psychology. You don't have to guess. You can ask the subjects, and they can tell you what they experienced. It's really as simple as that.

The fact that so many people with zero first hand experience insist on contradicting so many people who do have first hand experience is very telling. Basically, they don't think gay people are quite human, and they therefore don't think our opinions about ourselves and our own lives are worth listening to.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Binarymix
You don't have a choice on what you are sexually attracted to.
That's not what he was saying. You have a choice as to whether to act on that attraction or not. You can be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but that doesn't make you an alcoholic - you have to choose to drink in order to become one.

Before you jump on me for saying this - I'm simply clarifying someone else's statement that has been misunderstood several times in this post.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Binarymix
Just like straight pedophiles go out of their way to seduce children, doesnt make it any less disgusting, but not all straights are that way are they?
Wait, you aren't comparing homosexuals to pedophiles are you?!!?!
     
Binarymix
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Wait, you aren't comparing homosexuals to pedophiles are you?!!?!
No I was comparing the act of seducing the unaware. I find seducing the unwilling in any situation disgusting.
     
Kr0nos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the dancefloor, doing the boogaloo…
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Binarymix
No I was comparing the act of seducing the unaware. I find seducing the unwilling in any situation disgusting.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

If I change my way of living, and if I pave my streets with good times, will the mountain keep on giving…
     
Binarymix
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl
That's not what he was saying. You have a choice as to whether to act on that attraction or not. You can be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but that doesn't make you an alcoholic - you have to choose to drink in order to become one.

Before you jump on me for saying this - I'm simply clarifying someone else's statement that has been misunderstood several times in this post.
And I'm saying you don't have a choice when it comes to one of our most primal instincts.

Btw, alcohol, drugs, gambling, all those addictions have been created by man, sexual instinct was not.
     
Kr0nos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the dancefloor, doing the boogaloo…
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Binarymix
And I'm saying you don't have a choice when it comes to one of our most primal instincts.

Btw, alcohol, drugs, gambling, all those addictions have been created by man, sexual instinct was not.

There is no reason to abstain from homosexuality, just like there is no reason to "resist" pudding or chicken, just because some people find it "disgusting".

Enjoy your life, and we'll all be better off for it.

If I change my way of living, and if I pave my streets with good times, will the mountain keep on giving…
     
Binarymix
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kr0nos
There is no reason to abstain from homosexuality, just like there is no reason to "resist" pudding or chicken, just because some people find it "disgusting".

Enjoy your life, and we'll all be better off for it.
I do enjoy my life And I'm just fine with my sexuality, if others don't approve, **** them.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Binarymix
No I was comparing the act of seducing the unaware. I find seducing the unwilling in any situation disgusting.
Actually I was making a joke. Anytime I would make such a reference someone would knee-jerk and accuse me of calling homosexuals pedophiles. Sorry about the confusion.
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 12:14 PM
 
Personally, I think we over complicate human sexuality. It's my opinion that we all possess the capability of finding both males and females physically attractive. The desire to have sex is not aimed at having sex with the opposite gender, but just having sex in general. We aren't wired hetero, homo, or bi, we're just wired with a physical/physcological addiction to sexual stimulation.

Put simply, we are wired to get our sex fix any way we can. It's your personality which decides the acceptable methods (in your eyes) by which to get this fix. And personality is shaped by your social surroundings.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
Put simply, we are wired to get our sex fix any way we can. It's your personality which decides the acceptable methods (in your eyes) by which to get this fix. And personality is shaped by your social surroundings.
I had a job as a roofer in high school and several coworkers felt that farm animals were fair game. They seemed to have a strong preference for sheep. I guess that would fall under your "any way we can" statement.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
Personally, I think we over complicate human sexuality. It's my opinion that we all possess the capability of finding both males and females physically attractive. The desire to have sex is not aimed at having sex with the opposite gender, but just having sex in general. We aren't wired hetero, homo, or bi, we're just wired with a physical/physcological addiction to sexual stimulation.

Put simply, we are wired to get our sex fix any way we can. It's your personality which decides the acceptable methods (in your eyes) by which to get this fix. And personality is shaped by your social surroundings.
I'm in total agreement.

You reap what you sow.
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Really, the opinions of any straight people on this question of whether or not gay people experience a choice are irrelevant. This isn't animal psychology. It's human psychology. You don't have to guess. You can ask the subjects, and they can tell you what they experienced. It's really as simple as that.

The fact that so many people with zero first hand experience insist on contradicting so many people who do have first hand experience is very telling. Basically, they don't think gay people are quite human, and they therefore don't think our opinions about ourselves and our own lives are worth listening to.
While I don't mean to refute your base point which is that it's not a conscious choice, I will say that not everyone who holds this view is some how hateful towards gay people, a lot of them have simply not thought of it enough. Keeping in mind that it makes sense that straight people don't think too much about how gay people got the way they are, after all the people thinking aren't gay.
Anyway that said simply listening to the opinions of people as to their own psychological state and taking it at face value is often silly. People can often be in denial, and people who are homosexual are often in denial about some aspect of who they are. Especially in something that someone has to either justify or deny like what most people end up doing with their homosexual tendencies, it'd be very easy to get inaccurate data.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2006, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
Anyway that said simply listening to the opinions of people as to their own psychological state and taking it at face value is often silly. People can often be in denial, and people who are homosexual are often in denial about some aspect of who they are. Especially in something that someone has to either justify or deny like what most people end up doing with their homosexual tendencies, it'd be very easy to get inaccurate data.
Sure, people can be in denial. But not every gay person can be in denial, and pretty much every gay person reports the same thing -- no choice in the matter. Pretty much the only people who insist there is a choice are those with an anti-gay prejudice (meaning, literally, not listening to evidence that contradicts pre-judged opinion), or those, who, as you say, simply hold an opinion out of ignorance and failure to think about it.

So the bottom line is whether someone experienced a choice or not is wholly subjective. Even research scientists in the end have to resort to asking people. The only people able to answer a question about whether gay people subjectively experienced a choice are gay people. For anyone else, it would be a question of mind reading. And I am pretty sure that people who insist gays chose to be gay aren't endowed with ESP.
     
Donnab
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2006, 02:08 AM
 
I think we need to stop blaming mothers for everything, except bad cooking. There's no excuse for bad cooking.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,