Okay, you all are talking about gay people phycologically. I have two things to add:
Scientists have found that people have gangly hooks at the back of their brains. Homosexuals’ (please don’t use slang or derogetory terms like “gays”) hooks are not fully developed-or so they say.
You said that Homosexual men will not look at womens’ breasts. You also added things about eye contact. These things will not work if you’re talking of someone who is bisexual. They will be attracted to the other sex, look at womens’ breasts, and may or may not do eye contact stuff.
I believe you are referring to the hippocampus, a part of the brain responsible for quite a lot of things including some of the basic drives (appetite, thirst, sex). A particular region of it was found to be considerably larger in dead heterosexual males than in dead homosexual males. Interestingly, this region is also smaller in heterosexual females. The study did not look at homosexual females, alas, possibly due to a shortage of appropriate cadavers.
The study that really interested me (and no, I’m afraid I don’t have cites; I read about this in my psychology textbook in college, which I later sold back to the college bookstore for an insultingly low price) was a follow-up to that. Scientists successfully induced homosexuality in rats by deliberately damaging that particular region of the hippocampus. It was very interesting and quite persuasive to me that there is indeed at least some physical component to the way we become romantically attracted to other people.
Getting back to the “gaydar” thing and whether or not we can tell if somebody is straight or gay, I’d like to point out the large number of openly homosexual actors who can very convincingly play heterosexuals. Sir Ian McKellan comes to mind right away.
Do you actually expect anybody to fall for that? Seriously. It is clear to anyone reading this thread that you’ve made claims and repeatedly failed to back them up, while attempting to accuse me of doing the same. In vain, of course. I’m not holding my breath waiting for your cites; I know you don’t have any and that the claims you made were nothing but air. I’ve known all along.
As you have admitted previously, I never made any claims. As for the study calliarcale mentioned, it wasn’t specified by him. It sounded a lot like a study I’d read about so I felt I should point out its flaws. If calliarcale provides a cite, it will clearly show whether or not it’s the same study. If he doesn’t, it doesn’t matter. He is unlikely to, since he has already admitted to not having cites. Maybe you should call him and buy one of his clues.
I think the studies reporting homosexual brains differ from heterosexual ones are:
D. F. Swaab and M. A. Hofman, (1990), “An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men”, Brain Research, vol. 537, pages 141-148.
IIRC this study was heavily critized after publication if not rebunked (the presence of AIDS in most if not all gay subjects being an important factor). Swaab has withdrawn his conclusions and called them premature (again, IIRC).
And, mentioning the hypothalamus:
LeVay, S. (1991). C`A Difference" In Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men, Science 253, pp. 1034-37.
Regarding the issue, I honestly have a problem seeing the relevance in the findings in these articles. Even if it were true that there is a slight difference between the neuroanatomy of hetero and homosexual men (I know of no study regarding lesbians), waht would that mean? What would that proof?
I’m not saying the research shouldn’t be done for the sake of science, but instead of counting brain cells or doing a fancy variety of phrenology, one might as well study what these differences amount to.
Then again, to hear some people talk, the ones who say they aren’t gay, but whom everyone else says “must be,” are in denial or just haven’t realized it yet.
I’ve had several people over the years insist that I was just such a person – was gay, and either hadn’t “realized it” or was in denial.
The fact that they were, themselves, gay men, leads me to believe it was wishful thinking on their parts.
May I suggest looking at this issue from the other end? To the extend that this phenomenon exists - that many gay men deviate in outward behavior from straight men - I think it has at least as much to do with the pressure on men in general to conform to a narrow code of masculine behavior. As a young man becomes aware of his “differentness” he may detach from that code and allow himself to explore a wider range of behavior.
[sub]Insert usual caveats for generalization and opinion here.[/sub]
Regarding any evidence that sexual preference is genetic, there was an interesting new theory being developed, which I read about in Time magazine. Yes, I know, not the pillar of scientific discourse, but it’s an interesting angle nonetheless. I will attempt to link to June 2, 2003:
One of the possible factors cited is that gay men are more likely to have an older brother. The article presents the guess that the mother develops antibodies to male hormones that suppress or otherwise affect the later sons born.
The theory (and, I stress, this is only a theory – Time calls it a “radical new look”) also asserts that genetics are affected somewhat by environment: some sequences can be turned on or off depending on exposure to certain conditions, and that instead of nature vs. nurture, the article argues for nature via nurture. It’s a pretty lightweight article, but an interesting look. [/offtopic]
Regarding the mannerisms, though, I have to agree that most of it is selective perception along the lines of babies-born-on-the-full-moon mythos. More facts are wanting, but one is inclined to wonder what kind of facts would be sufficient, given the “he’s gay but he just doesn’t know it” argument. That’s going the way of Gattaca.
The relevance is more political/religious than scientific.
Basically, if these preliminary studies are confirmed, then gayness would be shown to be a genetically determined trait.
Then it’s much harder for religious groups to claim that gayness is a choice, and that if ‘those people’ would just accept Jesus or Allah or whomever into their hearts they could be ‘cured’.
Or for political groups to claim that allowing gay-straight groups in schools would somehow be ‘recruitment’, etc.
Scientific proof that gayness is biologically & genetically pre-determined would seriously undercut a lot of their arguments, so that’s why these studies are controversial.
(But it wouldn’t be the first time that advances in science have toppled the pronuncements of some religion or some political party!)
P.S. besides these studies, there have been the ‘heredity’ ones; basically, they seem to show that the more relatives you have that are gay, the higher the odds that you will be gay.
Thus (all from memory here, so these may not be the exact numbers):
basically any male has about 10% chance of being gay.
if you have uncles that are gay, that goes up to about 20%
if you have a brother that is gay, that goes up again to around 35-40%.
if it’s a fraternal twin brother, odds go up to around 60%.
if it’s an identical twin brother, it up to 80+% odds. (I’d think that should be 100%, but I guess I don’t really understand it.)
Even more interesting, these studies seem to hold true even for twins that were seperated and raised by different families. These results thus lead toward the conclusion that genetics may be more important than family structure (that old Nature vs. Nurture argument).
Whatever sexuality a person might have, I would hope that people around them would show their open mindedness and be comfortable with the person. It’s dissapointing that culture does not show the same forgiveness and acceptance to homosexual males as homosexual females when, most certainly, there are definite traits and characteristics women have that men dont and vice versa. Men should be allowed to admire other men as women are allowed to admire women.
I encourage all, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to get to know others as people before getting to know them as gays or lesbians. No man or woman is without flaw and no characteristic or trait as harmless as sexual preference should be considered as such.
I’m glad to see that most people who’ve posted are open minded and unbiased.
