Pink & Blue Brains

[dr_mabeuse]

Interesting article on human sexual development from the NY Times

Excerpt:
==========

...

Presumably the masculinization of the brain shapes some neural circuit that makes women desirable. If so, this circuitry is wired differently in gay men. In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.

Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”

Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.

Similar differences between the sexes are seen by Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University. “Most males are quite stubborn in their ideas about which sex they want to pursue, while women seem more flexible,” he said.

Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. “I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,” Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”

 

[3113]

Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”

Hooray, I'm a lesbian!

um...wait a minute....

 

[Alexandra1979]

So, is this how he explains female bisexuality? If so, what about male bisexuality?

 

[Equinoxe]

It is interesting, although I think it's wise not to take neuroscientific discoveries to heart, at least without a few more years of further research. It is still a very young science. There is a good deal of evidence with regard to sexual orientation, but our understanding of the particulars is constantly evolving.

I do wonder, for example, how they would address certain historical examples of different societies' treatment of sexuality and how that is explained by the research.

If so, what about male bisexuality?

According to at least one of the researchers interviewed in the article: it doesn't exist.

 

[slyc_willie]

So, is this how he explains female bisexuality? If so, what about male bisexuality?

Perhaps male bisexuality is a higher form of self-awareness . . . .

 

[JamesSD]

I read the article, and found it quite fascinating. Like most science articles, the conclusions from the observations were a bit of a stretch, but the observations themselves were quite interesting, such as the control the X chromosome has on the brain.

As for male bisexuality, one might imagine their brain chemistry to be more similar to that of female bisexuals. Male bisexuality does seem quite rare, although it's difficult to judge as there are clearly cultural factors as well.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

It is interesting, although I think it's wise not to take neuroscientific discoveries to heart, at least without a few more years of further research. It is still a very young science. There is a good deal of evidence with regard to sexual orientation, but our understanding of the particulars is constantly evolving.

I do wonder, for example, how they would address certain historical examples of different societies' treatment of sexuality and how that is explained by the research.



According to at least one of the researchers interviewed in the article: it doesn't exist.

Tell that some blokes that I know. My good friend Sev, for instance.

 

[3113]

Perhaps male bisexuality is a higher form of self-awareness . . . .

Talk about defining yourself to victory

 

[scheherazade_79]

I find it disturbing when people want to analyse and find explanations for homosexuality. It makes me wonder what's around the corner - medical cures for it? Genetic engineering, so it never happens to a person in the first place?

At the end of the day, gay people are good for a world that can't cope with all the people in it. We should be using so-called 'research' money to set up charities, where gays and lesbians are sent in minibuses to overcrowded third world countries, where their mission is to convert as many people as possible.

Either that, or someone needs to grab the Pope when no one's looking, and smother him to death with a giant condom.

 

[Equinoxe]

I find it disturbing when people want to analyse and find explanations for homosexuality. It makes me wonder what's around the corner - medical cures for it? Genetic engineering, so it never happens to a person in the first place?

Me too. I don't think it matters and I don't find biologists and research psychologists to be as impartial as I might like.

Specifically regarding this article: given the track record of statements by several of the researchers interviewed and referenced, I'd say you're not too far off.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Me too. I don't think it matters and I don't find biologists and research psychologists to be as impartial as I might like.

Specifically regarding this article: given the track record of statements by several of the researchers interviewed and referenced, I'd say you're not too far off.

* shudders *

Was Josef Mengele one of the Nazi scientists pardoned and taken in by the USA at the end of WW2? If so, I think the breeding program they put him on worked, because there seem to be lots like him around at the moment.

It's the equivalent of trying to discover what it is about black people that makes them black - or whether there's a biological or genetic reason for people having the religious beliefs that they do.

Do you believe in Allah? It's because you have a rogue chromosome - but don't worry, because we can remove it from your unborn baby, so that it'll turn out an absolute fascist, just like us.

I feel disturbed by this article, but at the back of my mind I'm thinking - "Don't feel threatened. At the end of the day these are people who probably believe that the world was created in 7 days, and that Darwin was a lying bastard."

One thing did occur to me, though... I'm guessing that these 'scientists' are straight white men, right? Do you know of many straight guys who want to spend their working days thinking about and dealing with homosexuals? Think about it...

 

[S-Des]

At the end of the day, gay people are good for a world that can't cope with all the people in it. We should be using so-called 'research' money to set up charities, where gays and lesbians are sent in minibuses to overcrowded third world countries, where their mission is to convert as many people as possible.

Are you volunteering?

Personally, I would welcome the research. There is so much misinformation and confusion about people's sexuality, I think it would help some people adjust to the idea that people are what they are...just accept it. It's often laid at the door of religion, but I find non-religious people tend to be just as intolerant. I know a horrific story about a man who was attacked and badly beaten by his brothers for coming out (and there was nothing religious about anyone in that family). I don't know if people that stupid can be swayed or not, but knowing there was a real physical reason might help some people cope (including gays who are uncomfortable with their feelings). I hope that no one tries to "fix" gay people if a physical reason behind their sexuality can be found. We have enough problems without going down such a dangerous road.

 

[impressive]

I find it disturbing when people want to analyse and find explanations for homosexuality. It makes me wonder what's around the corner - medical cures for it? Genetic engineering, so it never happens to a person in the first place?

Agreed. Why is it important to know the "cause" of our sexuality? Spend that money on researching cures for cancer or diabetes ... or developing that teleporter.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Agreed. Why is it important to know the "cause" of our sexuality? Spend that money on researching cures for cancer or diabetes ... or developing that teleporter.

Well, I think it's interesting. For one thing, it would shut up all the people who think of homosexuality as a deviancy that can be "cured". I understand that at one time they thought that bveing left-handed was such a deviancy and they spent a lot of time and ruined a lot of lives trying to "cure" people of being left-handed. If homosexuality were shown to have a big genetic component, that would prety much put an end to the idea of its 'wrongness'.

Secondly, I'm fascinated by the idea that sexual attraction and desire have biochemical roots and are maybe beyond our conscious control; that when we're attracted to someone it's not something as casual as free will but something stronger and more elemental than that, like natural law, Maybe these candles we burn and flowers we give and things like that operate on more than just our moods but are exerting forces on a physical, preconscious level we're not even aware of, affecting our chemistry of desire.

It's kind of magical. It's very sexy to think that we're engaged with the world in that way.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Well, I think it's interesting. For one thing, it would shut up all the people who think of homosexuality as a deviancy that can be "cured". I understand that at one time they thought that bveing left-handed was such a deviancy and they spent a lot of time and ruined a lot of lives trying to "cure" people of being left-handed. If homosexuality were shown to have a big genetic component, that would prety much put an end to the idea of its 'wrongness'.

Secondly, I'm fascinated by the idea that sexual attraction and desire have biochemical roots and are maybe beyond our conscious control; that when we're attracted to someone it's not something as casual as free will but something stronger and more elemental than that, like natural law, Maybe these candles we burn and flowers we give and things like that operate on more than just our moods but are exerting forces on a physical, preconscious level we're not even aware of, affecting our chemistry of desire.

It's kind of magical. It's very sexy to think that we're engaged with the world in that way.

I'm with you Zoot.
I think the human being is magical in itself.

 

[cantdog]

Try Terence McKenna!

You think you believe human beings are essentially magical...!

Zoot, kid! You're really scintillating lately! Lots of cool ideas and great language.

 

[pcremington]

Can't feel it's OK

The first thing I though upon reading the text from the Times is that while
scientist believe sexual orientation in males is developed before birth, they can be aborted. Something isn't right here.

 

[3113]

I find it disturbing when people want to analyse and find explanations for homosexuality. It makes me wonder what's around the corner - medical cures for it? Genetic engineering, so it never happens to a person in the first place?

I'm with S-Des and Zoot on this. *IF* it can be proven that being gay is, like left-handedness or blue eyes, something you are born with and don't choose, then gays will actually have more legal rights--possibly even the right to marry. It isn't *just* a lifestyle or a "choice" they're making willfully and can be easily cured of if they just "wanted" it enough and went to the right therapist.

As for genetic engineering so it never happens... Genetic tweaking is impossibly difficult and currently is and will be ruinously expensive. Likely for years to come. It's nice science fiction to imagine that we're going to be able to order up our babies like sweaters from catalogue within the next few years ("I'll take the number 177 baby. Yes, the lesbian model. I'd like that with green eyes and strawberry blond hair. Left-handed please...").

Sorry. No. Not anytime soon and certainly not something you'll be able to get with your credit card off the internet like shopping at Wal-Mart.

Now *maybe* if they can test for gayness while the babe is in the womb...then you'll have your Nazi situation of mothers aborting babies that reveal whatever clue there is to indicate that they're going to be gay. There is, however, a pretty good chance that such clues would be invisible in newborns.

So I don't think you have to worry just yet about such research leading to a uniform world of blond, blue-eyed heterosexuals.

 

[3113]

Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,”

I'm a little uncertain as to whether this is nature or nurture--knowing more about the actual experiment, what images the subjects were shown, what questions they were asked would help. My problem is this: Women tend to identify with images of women that they see. Women's mags, for example, feature a lot of women in clothes and such, hoping that women will imagine themselves as that woman, wearing those clothes, etc. This is a matter of empathy.

But men's mags tend to feature women, promising that if they buy this or wear that, they'll get the girl. This sexy woman holding a bottle of aftershave wants *you* to wear it and if you do she'll have sex with you.

So...unless the question asked was, "Would you have sex with this woman?" then women saying they're aroused by a picture of a sexy woman may only prove that they're imagining *themselves* as that sexy woman, in that sexy pose, luring a guy. Not that they look at it and get aroused because they want to have sex with the woman.

Meanwhile, men are taught from a very early age that even imagining sex with a guy is wrong--so I wonder how many of them answered that they were NOT arroused by images of guys even if they were.

More info on the experiment and how it was conducted would help to understand how they reached this particular conclusion.

 

[S-Des]

I'm a little uncertain as to whether this is nature or nurture--knowing more about the actual experiment, what images the subjects were shown, what questions they were asked would help. My problem is this: Women tend to identify with images of women that they see. Women's mags, for example, feature a lot of women in clothes and such, hoping that women will imagine themselves as that woman, wearing those clothes, etc. This is a matter of empathy.

But men's mags tend to feature women, promising that if they buy this or wear that, they'll get the girl. This sexy woman holding a bottle of aftershave wants *you* to wear it and if you do she'll have sex with you.

So...unless the question asked was, "Would you have sex with this woman?" then women saying they're aroused by a picture of a sexy woman may only prove that they're imagining *themselves* as that sexy woman, in that sexy pose, luring a guy. Not that they look at it and get aroused because they want to have sex with the woman.

Meanwhile, men are taught from a very early age that even imagining sex with a guy is wrong--so I wonder how many of them answered that they were NOT arroused by images of guys even if they were.

More info on the experiment and how it was conducted would help to understand how they reached this particular conclusion.

That's a very interesting theory. I don't know if it was conditioning or not, but I personally find nothing attractive about men (other than being able to recognize that a guy is good looking). It's always made it easier for me to understand people who said they always knew they were gay...I couldn't get excited by a guy if you paid me. I always heard and assumed that women were wired a bit differently and were more likely to find other women attractive, hence it being easier to be bi-sexual.

 

[Guest]

Well, I think it's interesting. For one thing, it would shut up all the people who think of homosexuality as a deviancy that can be "cured". I understand that at one time they thought that bveing left-handed was such a deviancy and they spent a lot of time and ruined a lot of lives trying to "cure" people of being left-handed. If homosexuality were shown to have a big genetic component, that would prety much put an end to the idea of its 'wrongness'.

Secondly, I'm fascinated by the idea that sexual attraction and desire have biochemical roots and are maybe beyond our conscious control; that when we're attracted to someone it's not something as casual as free will but something stronger and more elemental than that, like natural law, Maybe these candles we burn and flowers we give and things like that operate on more than just our moods but are exerting forces on a physical, preconscious level we're not even aware of, affecting our chemistry of desire.

It's kind of magical. It's very sexy to think that we're engaged with the world in that way.

This post is very sexy.