Fetishes (and attraction, in general)

That was your claim not mine. Do you have some evidence showing it to be because of being gay? Didn't think so..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oops. Let's read the entire excerpt there instead of selectively editing it to appear a certain way.

"Peter Bearman showed that males with a female twin are twice as likely to report same-sex attractions, unless there was an older brother. He says that his findings support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences. He suggests that parents of opposite-sex twins are more likely to give them unisex treatment, but that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow.[8] The proportion of adolescents reporting same-sex attraction is significantly higher than the proportion reporting same-sex sexual experience. In addition to attraction, opportunity has to present itself. Since opportunity is clearly socially structured, our expectation is that social influences should be stronger for behavior than attraction. He suggests possible socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior."

That's the old smothering mother myth that has long since been rejected by mainstream psychologists. Perhaps you could quote the actual studies supporting this claim?

Same sex marriage? I see nothing here supporting the claim that any of these factors actually caused the gay orientation of the children.

That would be a biological factor causing homosexuality, not an environmental one. Ofcourse you knew that but then you were hard-up for evidence of environmental factors weren't you? Might as well stretch environment to include the uterus eh? lol!

http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bisp194-1.FA09/Blanchard_2001.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was legitimately hoping you had some links to studies that may support your claim that more "coming out" contributes to the increase in suicides. I guess not.

 

Thank you Bells! So far so good I hope..

 

I never said coming out increased one's risk of suicide. I said being out made you a more visible target of homophobia, which explains your alleged recent increase in suicide rates among gays teens in a society that has become more tolerant of it.

As for the factors increasing the risk for gay suicide, one recent study narrowed it down to the environment:

"Gay, lesbian and bisexual teens are five times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts, but a supportive environment in their schools and communities can make a difference, new research suggests.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young adults from ages 15 to 24, and lesbian, gay and bisexual teens (LGB) youth are more likely to attempt suicide, according to the researchers.

The study researchers led by Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University polled more than 30,000 11th graders in different counties in Oregon. Results showed that about 20 percent of LGB teens attempted suicide in the 12 months before the survey, while only about 4 percent of heterosexual teens had. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]


The researchers also looked at the environments surrounding the students. They studied school-level initiatives, like LGB-specific anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies, school-based gay-straight alliances (student groups that work toward increasing tolerance between homosexual and heterosexual youth), abundance of same-sex couples in the area and the political leanings of the county.

LGB youth living in a social environment that was more supportive of gays and lesbians — for instance, having more anti-discrimination policies — were 25 percent less likely to attempt suicide than LGB youth living in less-supportive environments. Surprisingly, a supportive environment was also linked to 9 percent fewer attempted suicides in heterosexual teens.

"The results of this study are pretty compelling," Hatzenbuehler said in a statement. "When communities support their gay young people, and schools adopt anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies that specifically protect lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, the risk of attempted suicide by all young people drops, especially for LGB youth."

A study out last year found that parental support could also go a long way for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens. Published in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, the study found specific parental behaviors, such as advocating for their children when they are mistreated due to their LGBT identity and supporting their teen's gender expression, were linked to a lower likelihood of depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in early adulthood.

Schools can help by initiating and supporting these types of policies and supporting gay-straight alliances. "The good news is that this study suggests a road map for how we can reduce suicide attempts among lesbian, gay and bisexual youth," Hatzenbuehler said. "This study shows that the creation of school climates that are good for gay youth can lead to better health outcomes for all young people."

The study is published in the April 18 issues of the journal Pediatrics."---http://m.livescience.com/13755-homosexual-lgb-teen-suicide-rates-environments.html

 

Certainly, desire is a prerequisite for sexual orientation and behavior is only the uninhibition of attraction.

Where does that say anything about a "smothering mother"? This seems to be more of your hyperbole. Can you cite any studies that support that rejection?

And the citations are there in the link I gave you:

^ Bell, Weinberg, & Parks, 1981; Bieber et al., 1962; Braatan & Darling, 1965; Brown, 1963; Evans, 1969; Jonas, 1944; Millic & Crowne, 1986; Nicolosi, 1991; Phelan, 1993; Biggio, 1973; Seutter & Rovers, 2004; Siegelman, 1974; Snortum, 1969; Socarides, 1978; West, 1959).​

You really just cannot be bothered to seek out anything that may threaten your foregone conclusion, can you?

This is obviously your cognitive bias. Same-sex marriage does not occur in the absence of gay orientation, and it is ridiculous that I would have to point that out to you.

It explicitly says, "not due to a biological...process". Only a cognitive bias can explain you missing that. Hell, you even quoted that in your post. :facepalm:

 

Good point, Bells. Yes, Magical has done a masterful job throughout this discussion, and as always, with grace.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He said it himself: "He suggests possible socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation." Can't get any clearer than that. Socialization experiences DO NOT shape subsequent adult sexual orientation.

Mama's Boy Myth Debunked:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mamas-boy-myth-debunked-sons-close-mom-grow/story?id=15964415

The article said nothing about divorced parents causing a homosexual orientation in children. Perhaps YOU can explain this glaring discrepancy. In any case, the number of children of divorced parents far exceeds the roughly 4% of them that turn out gay. So obviously it can't be causing kids to turn gay. What a silly thing to assert.

So the fraternal birth order effect is NOT a biological process? Yet everything I find about it online shows it is. That's due to it happening even with brothers who are raised separately and NOT happening with adopted older brothers. It also only happens with right-handed boys.

"Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.[6][16][20][21] The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.

The fraternal birth order effect appears to interact with handedness, as the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males.[11][22][23][24]

Bogaert (2006) replicated the fraternal birth order effect on male sexual orientation, in a sample including both biological siblings and adopted siblings.[3] Only the older biological brothers influenced sexual orientation; there was no effect of adopted siblings. Bogaert concluded that his finding strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect."

"Some of the strongest current evidence that some people are born gay is based on a phenomenon called the fraternal birth order effect. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that men with older biological brothers are likelier to be gay than men with older sisters or no older siblings. The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality."---http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ty_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html

"Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%.[22][23] This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."[24] To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. This maternal immunization hypothesis (MIH) begins when cells from a male fetus enter the mother's circulation during pregnancy or while giving birth.[25] Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are "almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates." These Y-linked proteins would not be recognized in the mother's immune system because she is female, causing her to develop antibodies which would travel through the placental barrier into the fetal compartment. From here, the anti-male bodies would then cross the blood/brain barrier (BBB) of the developing fetal brain, altering sex-dimorphic brain structures relative to sexual orientation, increasing the likelihood that the exposed son will be more attracted to men than women.[25] It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember'. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.[22] However the theory has been criticized because symptoms which would be typical of such effects are rare compared with the prevalence of homosexuality."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

Physiological and cognitive differences between gay and straight people:

"Some studies have found correlations between physiology of people and their sexuality. These studies provide evidence which they claim suggests that:

Gay men and straight women have, on average, equally proportioned brain hemispheres. Lesbian women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres.[53]

The VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women, and larger in gay men than in heterosexual men.[54]

Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.[55]

The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.[32]

The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[31] but a subsequent study found no such difference.[56]

Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[57]

The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).[58]

The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[59] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[60]

The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[61]

Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two putative sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[28][62][63]

The amygdala, a region of the brain, is more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[64]

Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women.[58][65][66][67][68][69]

Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women;[70][71][72] Simon LeVay argues that because "[handedness]and preference is observable before birth...[73] [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[32]

A study of over 50 gay men found that about around 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population. This may correlate with left-handedness.[74]

Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies.[74]

Length of limbs and hands of gay men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men.[74]

Cognitive

Recent studies suggest the presence of subtle differences in the way gay people and non-gay people process certain kinds of information. Researchers have found that:

Gay men[75] and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same sex[76][77][78] (but two studies did not find this result).[79][80]

Gay men may receive higher scores than non-gay men on tests of object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women)."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

Peter Bearman showed that males with a female twin are twice as likely to report same-sex attractions, unless there was an older brother. He says that his findings support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences. He suggests that parents of opposite-sex twins are more likely to give them unisex treatment, but that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow. The proportion of adolescents reporting same-sex attraction is significantly higher than the proportion reporting same-sex sexual experience. In addition to attraction, opportunity has to present itself. Since opportunity is clearly socially structured, our expectation is that social influences should be stronger for behavior than attraction. He suggests possible socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation#Childhood_gender_non-conformity​

So since he says both "romantic preference" and "sexual behavior" (the two components of sexual/affectional orientation) are more socially derived, where (aside from one cherry-picked sentence) does that explicitly deny socialization experiences? How else do you define sexual orientation?

Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation​

Yes, that article is about "smothering mothers", but I asked you how this one was:

Researchers have provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men. Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation#Family_influences​

So that article is either evasion or non sequitur. It is trivial that a child with a "less loving and more rejecting father" will be much more likely to have "closer relationships with their mother". Nothing about "smothering mothers" (which can be coexistent with loving and accepting fathers) at all.

Neither did I.

Again, either evasion or complete non sequitur.

A 2006 Danish study compared people who had a heterosexual marriage versus people who had a same-sex marriage. Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large numbers of siblings, and late birth order. Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families. For men, same-sex marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family increased the likelihood of same-sex marriage. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation#Family_influences​

These are called contributing factors. Most intellectually honest people admit that there is no single cause for something as complex as human behavior. I did not assert that these factors alone cause homosexuality, so that is a strawman argument of your own making.

That is what the citation said. If it were all about the prenatal environment, we would expect to see a correlate between specific birth order and the strength of homosexual feelings. IOW, if each preceding male child effected the prenatal environment of the next, we should expect to see an increasing effect, in both frequency and magnitude.

I believe it was you who recently said: "Let's read the entire excerpt there instead of selectively editing it to appear a certain way." What you quoted above included this bit you "selectively edited":

McConaghy (2006) found no relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings, rather than homosexual identity or homosexual behavior, leading him to conclude that the influence of birth order on degree of homosexual feelings was not due to a biological, but a social process. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation#Theories_on_causation​

You did not even provide the link to that quote (maybe to hide the fact). You might want to avoid being obviously hypocritical if you wish to appear intellectually honest.

Again, cherry-picking, as that is followed by:

We know the effect is biological rather than social—it’s entirely absent in men whose older brothers were adopted—but scientists haven’t been able to prove much else. One of the leading explanations is called the maternal immunization hypothesis.
...Or so Blanchard speculates. Although the hypothesis sounds reasonable enough, it’s premised on a number of assumptions that haven’t been proven. For instance, no one has shown that there is a particular antigen that controls sexual orientation, let alone one designed to make men straight. And if that antigen does exist, does it control orientation only? Blanchard refers to its antibody attackers as “anti-male,” implying that the antigen controls for various aspects of masculinity. But when I asked him about this, he was noncommittal. Moreover, the hypothesis proposes a loose, two-way flow of antigens and antibodies between the fetus (whose antigens spread to the mother) and the mother (whose antibodies spread to the fetus). But this exchange has never been observed—and the antibodies and antigens in question are hypothetical, anyway. If they do exist, there’s no assurance that they perform this placental pirouette. - http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ty_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html​

Did you simply stop reading as soon as you thought your cognitive bias had been confirmed? And there are more than sufficient contrary studies to doubt the strictly biological cause:

Bearman and Brückner (2008) argue that studies showing a fraternal birth order effect have used nonrepresentative samples and/or indirect reports on siblings’ sexual orientation. Their analysis, focusing on opposite-sex twins, did not find an association "between same-sex attraction and number of older siblings, older brothers, or older sisters".[18] A study by Francis (2008), using the same Add Health survey but with broader analysis, saw a very weak correlation of male same-sex attraction with having multiple older brothers (but did find a significant negative correlation of male same-sex attraction with having older sisters). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation#Contrary_evidence​

You remember Bearman, you quoted him above.

Remember all the lack of evidence for the maternal immunization hypothesis (MIH) above?

And?

London cab drivers were found to have larger hippocampi (particularly in the posterior region) than other people, and the hippocampi (plural for hippocampus) are involved in navigation in birds and animals. In other words, as the cab drivers were required to learn new routes, their hippocampi grew in direct proportion to their training.

CONCLUSION: Structural brain changes can take place in human beings in direct proportion to their training and interaction with their environments. - http://www.profoundmeditationprogram.com/neuroplasticity-and-brain-training​

The operative word there being "report".

Data was gathered primarily by means of subjective report interviews... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports#Methodology

In experimental psychology and medical science, a subjective report is information collected from an experimental subject's description of their own experiences, symptoms or histories. Subjective reporting is the act of an individual describing their own subjective experience, following their introspection on physical or psychological effects under consideration. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_report​

IOW, there was no objective measurement. But why should that matter, right?

Did Kinsey researchers actually measure the arched staffs of their subjects?

“No,” the Canadian admitted. “The subjects reported themselves, either by mailing their measurements in, or by reporting their size to an interviewer.”

Men lie about their dimensions, Bogaert acknowledged, but in his opinion, this doesn’t explain the data. “The size discrepancy might have to do with ‘reporting bias’ if gay men are more likely to exaggerate the size of their penis. But we don’t think that’s the explanation. There’s evidence that heterosexuals are as likely to exaggerate as homosexuals.”

As for plans to reenact the original study with excited, contemporary wieners, Bogaert was doubtful. - http://www.salon.com/1999/11/04/size/


“Our study reveals that how gay men see their penis has considerable influence on how they value themselves in general,” Woertman said.

“It is not known whether if there is a similar link in heterosexual men, but there are various reasons for assuming that the self-image of heterosexual men is linked to how they evaluate the most characteristically masculine part of their body,” she added.

The men surveyed [251 gay men] said their penises were the most attractive parts of their body, followed by their stomachs and their skin. - http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-02-20-size-does-matter​

As straight man, my penis would be very far down the list of body parts I would say were "most attractive". It would seem that a "fondness" for penis may exaggerate both consideration of its attractiveness as well as self-reported dimensions.



But this is largely argument by verbosity. Two can play at that. Can you make or defend any arguments yourself?

The American Psychological Association stated, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles."[4] However, according to Royal College of Psychiatrists, there is "no substantive evidence" which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role.[5]
[It should probably be noted that psychiatry is a medical specialty, predisposed in approach to biological causes.]

Peter Bearman showed that males with a female twin are twice as likely to report same-sex attractions, unless there was an older brother. He says that his findings support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences. He suggests that parents of opposite-sex twins are more likely to give them unisex treatment, but that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow.[8]

Researchers have provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men.[9] Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality,[10]

A 2006 Danish study compared people who had a heterosexual marriage versus people who had a same-sex marriage. Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large numbers of siblings, and late birth order. Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families. For men, same-sex marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child.

McConaghy (2006) found no relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings, suggesting the influence of fraternal birth order was not due to a biological, but a social process.[22]

In Denmark, people born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, and more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers.[10]

One study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that "Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." [29] Another study found that "Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation."[30] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation​

And...

While children may exhibit regressive behaviours such as a return to thumb-sucking or bed-wetting, the strongest indicator of sexual abuse is sexual acting out and inappropriate sexual knowledge and interest.[29][30] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_effects​

 

Oh, you were specifically talking about physical sexual advance. Sure, especially from a relative stranger.

 

Since Bearman himself is the one who made the distinction between romantic preference and adult sexual orientation, I can only assume he didn't mean them to be the same thing. Who knows what he thinks he's proven? That boys can have homoaffectionate attachments with other boys before they reach adolescence that are independent of their adult orientation? Could be, but that certainly doesn't establish a social influence on sexual orientation. Many boyhood friendships are close and intimate without implying anything about a permanent orientation. Sexuality is very fluid at that stage so ofcourse there will be experimentation. Hence his stipulation: He suggests possible socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior.

Just another version of the same old myth--being too close to their mother feminizes boys. Research indicating that gay sons are closer to their mothers proves nothing. Being gay they may be more in touch with their feelings and be able to identify more with women. This is something I've seen in my own experience. But that doesn't mean my mother turned me gay. I was gay long before that.

Nice backpeddling there. You should have omitted that study to begin with since it is only referring to the likelihood of gay marriage vs heterosexual marriage. That would be only a very small percentage of actual gay people, particularly in a country where gay marriage is still largely illegal.

Unless sexual orientation is like a switch that is either on or off. I've never encountered anyone in my experience who was just half gay, or a quarter gay, have you?

You already said that. So I have provided the evidence against that by showing how the effect occurs even when brothers are raised separately and doesn't occur with adopted brothers. Can't you read?

The effect has been more than clearly demonstrated and replicated:

Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation

Anthony F. Bogaert *


Edited by Dale Purves, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, and approved May 17, 2006 (received for review December 29, 2005)

Abstract

The most consistent biodemographic correlate of sexual orientation in men is the number of older brothers (fraternal birth order). The mechanism underlying this effect remains unknown. In this article, I provide a direct test pitting prenatal against postnatal (e.g., social/rearing) mechanisms. Four samples of homosexual and heterosexual men (total n = 944), including one sample of men raised in nonbiological and blended families (e.g., raised with half- or step-siblings or as adoptees) were studied. Only biological older brothers, and not any other sibling characteristic, including nonbiological older brothers, predicted men’s sexual orientation, regardless of the amount of time reared with these siblings. These results strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.
immune
sexuality

Recent research has provided evidence that genetic and prenatal factors may influence sexual orientation development (1–7). In this article, I demonstrate that the number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant (but not the number of nonbiological older brothers), increases the probability of homosexuality in men. These results provide evidence that a prenatal mechanism(s), and not social and/or rearing factors, affects men’s sexual orientation development.

The most consistent biodemographic correlate of sexual orientation in men is the number of older brothers, originally observed by Blanchard and Bogaert (8) in a Canadian sample in the 1990s but since then found in samples from different eras and from different countries, both by us and independent investigators (2, 7, 9–12). Evidence does not exist that sibling characteristics reliably correlate with women’s sexual orientation (13, 14). Both childhood social/rearing (13, 15, 16) and prenatal (8, 13) mechanisms have been advanced to account for the older brother (“fraternal birth-order”) effect in men, but a direct test pitting prenatal versus postnatal (e.g., social/rearing) mechanisms is lacking. Such a test is possible when information on both biological and nonbiological siblings, along with sexual orientation, is included in the research design.

Four samples of homosexual and heterosexual men (total n = 944) reporting on their parental and sibling characteristics (i.e., biological and nonbiological siblings) were examined to test this issue. Three samples were archival and contained men with (largely) biologically intact families. These samples contained information on all siblings (both biological and nonbiological) with whom the participant was reared. The fourth sample was recruited specifically to test the research issue investigated in this article and contained men with nonbiological or blended families (e.g., raised with half- or step-siblings or as adoptees). This final sample also contained information on the amount of time the participants were reared with each sibling, along with information on any biological siblings with whom they were never reared.

If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, then all older brothers reared with the participant should predict sexual orientation because all of these older male siblings (both biological and nonbiological) share the social/rearing environment with their younger male siblings. If a prenatal factor underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, however, then only biological older brothers should predict sexual orientation because only biological older brothers (and not nonbiological older brothers) share prenatal characteristics (e.g., gestated by the same biological mother) with their younger male siblings. Second, if rearing or social factors underlie the fraternal birth-order effect, then the amount of time reared with older brothers, either biological or nonbiological, should predict sexual orientation because rearing time indexes the relative opportunity that older brothers have to affect their younger sibling’s (postnatal) sociosexual development. If a prenatal factor underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, however, then a postnatal factor such as rearing time with older siblings (be they biological or nonbiological) should have no impact on the sexual orientation of younger male siblings. Finally, if rearing or social factors underlie the fraternal birth-order effect, then the number of biological older brothers with whom the participants were not reared should not predict sexual orientation because they should have no impact on the (postnatal) sociosexual environment of their younger brothers. If a prenatal factor underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, however, then biological older brothers with whom the participants were not reared should predict sexual orientation because all biological older brothers, even those not reared with the participants, share prenatal characteristics (e.g., gestated by the same mother) with their young male siblings."--http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long

Seriously? lol! What "training" do gay teens go thru that can change their brains so radically? All the training I see for teen boys is how to date and have sex with girls. Movies, music, and peer pressure constantly constraining their behavior towards heterosexuality. Nothing even close to that occurs for gay youth. They find out they're gay as soon as puberty hits. This is a major problem with the socialization theories of gayness. The whole environment is geared towards turning boys into heterosexuals. And yet despite these influences, 5% of boys turn out to be gay anyway. And any differences in brain structure would have long been made by then.

More studies confirming the biological basis of homosexuality:

[color=#99000]Biology Behind Homosexuality In Sheep, Study Confirms


Mar. 9, 2004 — PORTLAND, Ore. – Researchers in the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine have confirmed that a male sheep's preference for same-sex partners has biological underpinnings.

A study published in the February issue of the journal Endocrinology demonstrates that not only are certain groups of cells different between genders in a part of the sheep brain controlling sexual behavior, but brain anatomy and hormone production may determine whether adult rams prefer other rams over ewes.

"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans," said the study's lead author, Charles E. Roselli, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, OHSU School of Medicine. "The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development and regulation of heterosexual, as well as homosexual, behavior."

The results lend credence to previous studies in humans that described anatomical differences between the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men, as well as sexually unique versions of the same cluster of brain cells in males and females.

"Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species." said Roselli, whose laboratory collaborated with the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University and the USDA Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.

Kay Larkin, Ph.D., an OHSU electron microscopist who performed laboratory analysis for the study, said scientists now have a marker that points to whether a ram may prefer other rams over ewes.

"There's a difference in the brain that is correlated with partner preference rather than gender of the animal you're looking at," she said.

About 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don't believe it's related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes.

"They're one of the few species that have been systematically studied, so we're able to do very careful and controlled experiments on sheep," Roselli said. "We used rams that had consistently shown exclusive sexual preference for other rams when they were given a choice between rams and ewes."

The study examined 27 adult, 4-year-old sheep of mixed Western breeds reared at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. They included eight male sheep exhibiting a female mate preference – female-oriented rams – nine male-oriented rams and 10 ewes.

OHSU researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain, which they named the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus or oSDN because it is a different size in rams than in ewes. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that controls metabolic activities and reproductive functions.

The oSDN in rams that preferred females was "significantly" larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol so the androgen hormone can facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes.

The study was the first to demonstrate an association between natural variations in sexual partner preferences and brain structure in nonhuman animals.

The Endocrinology study is part of a five-year, OHSU-led effort funded through 2008 by the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists will work to further characterize the rams' behavior and study when during development these differences arise. "We do have some evidence the nucleus is sexually dimorphic in late gestation," Roselli said.

They would also like to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, such as by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.

In collaboration with geneticists at UCLA, Roselli has begun to study possible differences in gene expression between brains of male-oriented and female-oriented rams."--[/color]---http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How identical twins can have different sexual orientations: Hormones and epigenetics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

"Sexual dimorphisms in the brain and behavior among vertebrates are accounted for by the influence of gonadal steroidal androgens as demonstrated in animal models over the past few decades. The prenatal androgen model of homosexuality describes the neuro-developmental effects of fetal exposure to these hormones.[1] In 1985, Geschwind and Galaburda proposed that homosexual men are exposed to high androgen levels early in development, explaining their tendency to be less right-handed and by extension the hyper-masculinized traits observed in this population.[1] It is currently argued that temporal and local variations in androgen exposure to a fetus’s developing brain is a factor in the pathways determining homosexuality. Recent research has been performed to find somatic markers for prenatal hormonal exposure which have been found to show variation based on sexual orientation in healthy adult individuals.

Other evidence supporting the role of testosterone and prenatal hormones in sexual orientation development include observations of male subjects with cloacal exstrophy who were sex-assigned as female during birth only later to declare themselves male. This supports the theory that the prenatal testosterone surge is crucial for gender identity development. Additionally, females whose mothers were exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy show higher rates of bi- and homosexuality.[2]

2D:4D digit ratio[edit]

The best, non-invasive, marker of prenatal hormone exposure is the digit ratio of the second and fourth finger lengths (2D:4D ratio), a known sexually dimorphic measure (males showing lower ratios than females). Patients with androgen over-exposure (such as in congenital adrenal hyperplasia) show lower 2D:4D ratios,[3][4] providing evidence linking prenatal androgen exposure as key to this feature. XY individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome due to a dysfunctional gene for the androgen receptor present as women and have feminine digit ratios, as would be predicted if androgenic hormones affect digit ratios. This finding also demonstrates that the sex difference in digit ratio is unrelated to the Y chromosome per se.[5] Additionally, the 2D:4D ratio has been shown to be affected by variation in the androgen receptor gene in men.[6] The ratio of testosterone to estrogen in amniotic fluid has also been found to be negatively correlated with the 2D:4D ratio.[1]

Independent studies indicate that homosexual women have masculinized (lower) digit ratios,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and homosexual men show either hyper-masculinized or feminized ratios. These findings reinforce the prenatal androgen model - abnormal prenatal hormone exposure is related to the development of human homosexuality."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation

 

You can bold that quote as many times as you like, but it does not answer my question. How else do you define sexual orientation? Regardless of how he defines it, how would you define sexual orientation in such a way that leaves any significant aspect open to a strictly biological cause? What, other than the sexual and affectional components, defines a sexual orientation?

Failure to answer will be an outright evasion.

And it is trivial that adolescents, no matter how sexually active they generally are, will report more attraction than sexual experience, as the former necessarily precedes the later. So the only reason he has for assuming anything different of orientation is based on a non-representative sample. That is how pseudoscience is done.

Yet you insist that the same sort of correlation must mean causation, even where no mechanism has been found or proven. And your dismissal of evidence is a special pleading based on nothing but subjective and anecdotal experience.

It is not the "same old myth" as being close with ones mother does not make that mother "smothering", "overbearing", or anything else. And while I did not know (or had forgotten) that you were gay, that does explain your bias.

The legality of gay marriage is a red herring, as that study only examined the correlates of same-sex marriage and childhood circumstances. But you should also have paid attention to "A 2006 Danish study", i.e. where gay marriage is legal. And even though Denmark did not legalize "same-sex marriage" until 2012, it was one of the first to legalize "partnerships" with all the same rights and obligations as marriage in 1998. (You should seriously know your gay history.) And if you read the study, it says: "We studied childhood correlates of first marriages (heterosexual since 1970, homosexual since 1989) in a national cohort of 2 million 18–49 year-old Danes."

Obviously Danes considered these "partnerships" as same-sex marriage for eight years previous to the study.

Someone, I believe it was Fraggle Rocker, was saying that conversions from homo to heterosexuality could be explained by the gradient of orientation, as a scale that runs from wholly homo through bi to wholly heterosexual. If you are saying that homosexuality is strictly on/off then reports from ex-gays of conversion would be equally applicable to the capacity of all gays to convert.

Also, if an epigenetic cause, where gene expressions are turned on/off, is true, the article you quoted earlier does not help your overall cause.

There’s a problem with this explanation. Even though the gay rights movement theoretically wants proof that homosexuality is inborn, this particular hypothesis is, unintentionally, a little insulting. “The scientists behind the [maternal immunization] hypothesis talk about it as if they’re not making judgments, but there are implicit judgments,” says Jack Drescher, former chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. Drescher points out, correctly, that the hypothesis is fundamentally one of pathology. If Blanchard is right, then (at least some) gay people are indeed born gay, but there’s still something wrong with them. The hypothesis turns homosexuality into a birth defect, an aberration: Gay people are deviants from the normative mode of heterosexuality. We may have been born this way, the hypothesis implies, but that’s not how it was supposed to happen. - http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ty_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html​

What happens when epigenetic research provides a way to selectively turn off the gene expression for homosexuality? Then it will not only be a choice, but those who would want to but have trouble "converting" on their own would instantly have a fix. And that would include a fix for those who struggle with their sexuality as teens (to the point of depression and anxiety).

It is funny you keep touting the theories on causation when none of those have been proven. What you have show is only what occurs (correlate), not "how the effect occurs"(cause).

Contrary evidence
Bearman and Brückner (2008) argue that studies showing a fraternal birth order effect have used nonrepresentative samples and/or indirect reports on siblings’ sexual orientation. Their analysis, focusing on opposite-sex twins, did not find an association "between same-sex attraction and number of older siblings, older brothers, or older sisters".[18] A study by Francis (2008), using the same Add Health survey but with broader analysis, saw a very weak correlation of male same-sex attraction with having multiple older brothers (but did find a significant negative correlation of male same-sex attraction with having older sisters).[19] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation#Contrary_evidence​

Note "evidence" not "theories".

Again, touting unproven theory to refute contrary evidence.

Brain changes due to neuroplasticity can occur with something as simple as imagined practice of an activity, so there is nothing "radical" about things like potential traumas having a much more marked influence.

And no, most socialization theories do not rely on typical social pressures, as those typically and trivially produce heterosexuals. The uniqueness of homosexuality would have equally unique environmental factors.

There are a wide variety of recent studies that show that your actions can actually alter your DNA, including what you pass on to children. This is just more evidence in the same direction as neuroplasticity, that also casts doubt on whether genetics can even be isolated from the environmental factors and behavior.


As it stands, homosexual activists are operating under a dualism of environment and genetics (similar to the dualism of religious belief) with increasing evidence that such a dualism is not fundamental.

 

And good soccer players are also often primarily left-handed/footed, but can use both sides of their bodies very well. In soccer, that tends to be explained that people who are left-handed and left-footed early on learn to consciously train their right side, which has the cumulative effect that on the whole, they are better trained and have more insight into controlling one's body than the people who are primarily in line with the social norm, ie. right-sided. The social norm is that right-sided people don't particularly train their left side, but that left-sided people do and should train their right side.

So much about prenatal processes and perhaps heredity ...

 

Genetic factors

Handedness displays a complex inheritance pattern. For example, if both parents of a child are left-handed, there is a 26% chance of that child also being left-handed.[8] A large study of twins from 25,732 families by Medland et al. (2006) has indicated that the heritability of handedness is roughly 24%.[9] This leaves about three quarters of the effect to be explained by environmental factors.

To date, two theoretical single gene models have been proposed to explain the patterns of inheritance of handedness, the first by Dr. Marian Annett[10] of the University of Leicester and the second by Professor Chris McManus[8] of UCL.

However, the growing weight of evidence from linkage and genome-wide association studies suggests that genetic variance in handedness cannot be explained by a single genetic locus.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] From these studies Chris McManus et al. now conclude that handedness is polygenic and estimate that at least 40 loci contribute to determining this trait.[19]

Brandler et al. performed a genome-wide association study for a measure of relative hand skill and found that genes involved in the determination of left/right asymmetry in the body play a key role in determining handedness.[20] These results suggests the same mechanisms that determine left/right asymmetry in the body (e.g. NODAL signalling and ciliogenesis) also play a role in the development of brain asymmetry (handedness is an outward reflection of brain asymmetry for motor function).

PreNatal Hormone Exposure

A 2003 study endorsed by the Center of Disease Control determine that males with in-utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol (a synthetic estrogen based fertility drug), were more likely to be left-haneded over the clinical control group. Experimental animal models showed the same pattern.[21]

Prenatal vestibular asymmetry

Previc, after reviewing a large number of studies, found evidence that the position of the fetus in the final trimester and a baby's subsequent birth position can affect handedness. About two-thirds of fetuses present with their left occiput (back of the head) at birth. This partly explains why prematurity results in a decrease in right-handedness. Previc argues that asymmetric prenatal positioning creates asymmetric stimulation of the vestibular system, which is involved in the development of handedness. In fact, every major disorder in which patients show reduced right-handedness is associated with either vestibular abnormalities or delay,[22] and asymmetry of the vestibular cortex is strongly correlated with the direction of handedness."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness

 

What's your point?

 

You can quibble over the semantics of words like "preference", "desire", and "orientation" to your heart's content but all this is irrelevant to this study since the author blatantly denied socializing factors shape "subsequent adult sexual orientation." So you using this study to prove the precise opposite is either just ignorant or disingenuous. Probably a bit of both. In any case, I'll repeat the bolded statement of Bearman as many times as necessary for it to finally sink in for you: He suggests possible socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior.

LOL! Oh so NOW this is a pseudoscientific survey? Why are you quoting it then? Clearly you are desperate for anything to prove environmental determination of homosexuality when there a clear lack of any evidence or theories for such.

What are you talking about? All I have offered so far is scientific evidence along with suggested logical mechanisms for the biological basis of sexual orientation, from genetics to prenatal hormonal exposures and epigenetic switches. In the meantime you basically hinge your entire environmental case on 3 studies, the first of which outright denies any shaping of adult sexual orientation, the second of which involves a small segment of the danish population of gay people marrying, and the third one a much repeated statement from a Wiki article claiming that the fraternal birth order effect must be due to socialization because there aren't gradual degrees of homosexuality found in younger brothers? You have zero evidence for any kind of socialization process whatsoever determining sexual orientation and certainly no rational mechanism explaining how such might occur. You even admit there are biological factors. So what exactly are you attempting to prove here?

Being the favorite of one's mother does indeed equate to being smothered with love and attention that the siblings are deprived of. It's the same old myth of the mama's boy who the father is always afraid will become a sissy/fag. But as my article made clear, it's a myth that has long since been debunked.

Typical homophobic response, that being gay is somehow disabling to my ability to clearly think or reason. Maybe..just maybe..my being gay enables me to know from firsthand experience more about this topic than you can ever possibly know about it.

So the study only applies to Danish gay persons who wind up marrying? Boy, I can't think of a less applicable study to the issue of whether environmental factors cause children in general to become gay. Why are you quoting a study with such a limited and preselected sampling?

If there's one thing mainstream DOES agree on it is the affect gay reparative therapies actually have on gay youth. And most psychologists concur that such therapies only cause psychological harm to the teens/young people. With several states already enacting laws against it, I'm surprised you would tout such a practice along with it's numerous self-reported "cures" as evidence for anything. Have you even looked at what some of these "therapies" involve? Pseudoscientific barbarism at it's finest.

"The American Psychological Association defines conversion therapy as therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation.[6] The American Psychiatric Association states that conversion therapy is a type of psychiatric treatment "based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."[3] Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality by techniques including aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals," and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli," masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure."[7]

Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[3][8][9] The advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation.[8] The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in the United States vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy (American Psychological Association), to recommendations that ethical practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or from referring patients to those who do (American Counseling Association."---http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Conversion_therapy.html

Unless there are several biological factors causing gay sexual orientation. Perhaps some are genetic, while others are prenatal, while still others are epigenetic. That's certainly what the evidence suggests.

Science uncovers what it uncovers. If it turns out that being gay results from certain things going wrong, we'll just have to live with that. But then being a genius, a twin, a little person, left-handed, etc. are other examples of biology run amok too. Still we don't disparage THESE people as being abnormal. The fact that we seek to do so with gay people only underscores the traditional homophobic attitudes that still persist in our society.

In a world becoming more accepting of gays by the year, there are less and less people ridden with the guilt and shame that homophobia and religion have traditionally instilled in them. I envision a future when sexual orientation will become as trivial a trait as handedness. Where the acceptance of who one turned out to be, by whatever mechanism, is more crucial to psychological health than any attempt or strategy to rectify it. I totally accept who I am. I have no desire to change my sexual orientation. That's what it means to evolve and grow as a person.

Those studies were not "theories of causation." They were actual studies confirming the fraternal birth order effect occurring independently of any socialization process (with brothers raised separately and not with adopted brothers.) This PROVES it is biological. How this is lost on you bewilders me.

Yet the results of several other studies have confirmed it:

"Bogaert and a colleague first reported the older-brother effect a decade ago. According to Bogaert, men with no older brothers have about a 2 percent to 3 percent chance of being gay. If they have three or four older brothers, the rate goes up to about 5 percent.

About 20 studies have reinforced the link between fraternal birth order and male homosexuality, Bogaert said. However, no similar link has been found in lesbians."--http://www.thebodyissacred.org/fr/homo_sc.asp-

I see. So special brain trauma is required to turn a boy gay now? Do you have some studies establishing brain trauma as a factor changing sexual orientation? I'd like to read those for entertainment purposes only. lol!

I was raised in a family of 4 siblings. We were all raised in the same environment. The same house. The same town. The same schools. The same church. The same parents. Yet only I turned out gay. How do you explain that?

LOL! So getting more exercise can change your sexual orientation now? I used to work out a lot and run when I was in the Navy, yet never did my brain turn into a heterosexual brain that suddenly saw girls as sex objects. Wonder why?

As it stands the science of sexual orientation now heavily favors biological factors as the causes and not environmental ones. You know this, I know this, and everybody without a pre-existing usually religiously motivated agenda to pathologize homosexuality can find this out with a reasonably good search engine.

 

I see that this has become a conversation about sexual orientation. Sad, I was really interested in the origins of kinks. Oh well. I've read every post in the last 4 pages, so I should say something. How to start? As a person, who at any given time can have a sexual attraction experience that falls anywhere between asexual and pansexual, and a romantic attraction experience which depends completely on personality compatibility; I tend to be, more often than not, heterosexual in practice. I like the way many women look; I like the way many men look. I like the way a woman feels; and I like the way a man feels. I enjoy to play with both kinds of human genitals. The reason that I am primarily heterosexual, is simply because I want to have many children before I die(and for lots of women, in my experience, it's a turnoff for her to find out that you're attracted to men as well), and honestly I'm not that sexually active at this point in time. I want to be clear though, that I have tried, and enjoyed both sides of sexual orientation. So then, for one such as myself, orientation is most definitely a choice. Maybe I should consider myself lucky, based on all the things I've read over the years, to have that choice. Well, but, like many people, I lack the empathic capacity to imagine that being any different. Everything that I like and don't like is my choice. How could it not be. I don't play scat because it's a good way to get an infection, it stinks, ruins clothes, and you have to shower afterwards. Then again, I don't mind the need to take a shower and throw out sheets after period sex. Yet, I still choose to refrain from period sex most of the time for just those reasons. I don't really do D/s, because I enjoy both the power, and the security, and don't want to limit myself to only one of those. I don't smoke crack because I don't like how it feels coming down. I only read classic literature or something that someone recommends because I've learned that most prose really isn't worth the time. How I feel about anything that I can think of has a good reason. Honestly, the only time that I've ever experienced romantic love was something that I decided to embrace because I believed that the other person was in love with me. Sure, once I was there, I couldn't just make it go away(not immediately), but I didn't have to get to that point if I didn't want to. I believe that fully and completely.

As to where sexual orientation comes from. Hm... I don't know. What I do know though, is that one person's opinion on the subject is no more valid than anyone else's. That's what you can't deny, due to the fact that nobody knows.