Posted on 10/06/2003 4:07:01 PM PDT by AntiGuv
MONDAY, Oct. 6 (HealthDayNews) -- The origins of sexual orientation may be evident in the blink of an eye.
In what is the first study to show an apparent link between a non-learned trait and sexual orientation, British researchers have discovered the way peoples' eyes respond to sudden loud noises may signal differences between heterosexual and homosexual men and women that were developed before birth.
The authors, whose study appears in the October issue of Behavioral Neuroscience, say about 4 percent of men and 3 percent of women are gay. Scientists have long sought to determine whether sexuality is learned or biological.
"We have several decades of research which suggests rather strongly that human sexual orientation is to some degree biologically determined," says study author Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of East London. "The problem with those types of studies is that we can't disentangle the effects of learning."
The question then became, "What kind of task could be used that is not influenced by learning or socialization?" The answer came in human startle responses, which are involuntary and instinctual.
Specifically, Rahman and his colleagues decided to use pre-pulse inhibition (PPI). When humans hear a sudden noise, they respond by blinking. If that loud noise is preceded by a quieter noise (the pre-pulse), the response to the second, loud noise is weaker. In other words, it is inhibited.
The researchers compared responses to a loud noise both alone and after a quieter noise to see what the degree of inhibition was. Participants were 59 gay and straight men and women.
In the heterosexual women, the PPI averaged 13 percent and, in heterosexual men, 40 percent.
Lesbians, however, had a PPI of 33 percent, closer to the straight-man end of the spectrum, while gay men averaged 32 percent, slightly lower than that of straight men but not statistically significant.
The findings are consistent with other studies, which have found that certain traits in lesbians are highly "masculinized," while the same traits in gay men are almost the same as in straight men.
While it's difficult to make generalizations about gay behavior on the basis of these findings (for example, "all gay male thinking is like that of women"), it is possible to build a case for the origins of sexuality, the authors say.
"On the basis of these results and in conjunction with the bulk of the literature in the last three decades or so, the evidence points to some prenatal factor or factors [in determining sexual preference]," Rahman says.
The findings could have implications for a number of social issues.
"Actual sexual orientation and sex-related research is now being accepted as a legitimate national investment in terms of research," Rahman says. "We have problems with STDs [sexually transmitted diseases]. Understanding sexual behavior is clearly important to that."
The findings may also help illuminate sex differences in mental health issues. "Although homosexuality per se is not related to psychiatric problems, on those occasions that gays and lesbians do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex," Rahman says. Gay men, for example, may be more likely to suffer depression, anxiety and eating disorders than their straight counterparts, while lesbians may be more vulnerable to substance abuse than heterosexual women.
"Maybe having an understanding of brain basis of sexual orientation in healthy individuals may give us some clues in what is going wrong in the brain circuitry underlying certain psychiatric problems," Rahman says. "In the future, we may be able to tailor treatments more specifically."
It's important not to draw too many generalizations. "It's not that the gay brain is like the heterosexual brain of the opposite sex. It seems to be a mosaic of male and female typical traits," Rahman says. "Because we're looking at humans, thing are always more complicated that you would expect."
Yes, and most Muslims 'leave us alone too'. . .but they (and 'most homos') fail to speak out against the ones that don't, thus giving tacit approval to their behavior.
some of the "science" in all of this seems hyped.
As in any study seeking distinctions between nature / nurture:
1.you can only use identical twins that were separated at birth--but are still both locatable---a very tiny pool to begin with.
2.Then you need to find twins that were male. (cut the small pool in half)
3. Then find twins that are self-described as gay (take out another 96%!)
4. Then, in a field so emotionally charged, you have to make sure that the twins have remained isolated from each other to knock out any "sympathy for my twin" attitudes.
I would guess an honest pool in the US would probably be small enough to fit in a phone booth ---if that.
But you haven't allowed for the fact that Ms. Mack Truck, from an early age was looked at differently than Ken's Barbie. It is unimaginable that these kinds of experience (especially in our era of extremely high value on perfectionist sexual images) did not have a profound effect on her attitudes toward boys, men, and women. Most Lesbians (maybe all) are "lesbians by default," ---They desperately want someone to hug them and hold them close, but they perceive the chances of that happening with a male human as essentially zero, so they get affection where they can find it--a dog, a cat, or a female human.
It's called immutable FACT. No scientific evidence necessary because it is not arguable.
"Have any of the people who think that it's not biological in many, if not most, cases ever stopped to ask why a man would prefer a man instead of a woman? "
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Have any of the people who think that it is biological in many, if not most, cases ever stopped to ask why a man or a woman would stick a needle in their arm to get high?
Love and sex...are pretty powerful emotions and feelings. And yes...one can become, like the heroin addict is addicted to heroin, addicted to same gender love and sex.
Fwiw-
Well, the cool thing about evolution is that it is a concept so pliable and plastic, that it can be formed to almost any set of facts. So I'm sure there are folks out there who say that homosexuality in a population results in better haircuts so that the heterosexuals, having been preened by the homos, are really extra hot to get it on and attract partners from other clans.
There are any number of such schemes you could invent, and if you have a grant, get it published, and you would have people on this site reverently call it "Science".
"Christians sure can be neanderthals sometimes. "
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Yes....just as all humans can.
Worth repeating.
LOL! I think it's more a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none kind of thing.. Yesterday, I actually finally wrote most of the answer to Torie's question of over a year ago now regarding what my research entailed and how/why it's influenced my political belief system. I'll probably be posting that elsewhere later tonight when I give it the final once-over.
That's a valid observation but in this case she certainly had opportunities for sexual relations with the opposite sex including me. She is delightful to be around, intelligent and the first to help someone in need. You may be correct in her case but I doubt it.
I do know of a very attractive woman who became a lesbian because of environmental considerations but she also exhibited other signs of the stresses that she had experienced. The woman in the first case seems to have none of those symptoms.
I had some of them but not all.
There's some great material on those sites. Thanks!
No, actually you are confused.
They are one and the same.
The natural biological design reflects God's created intent for human sexuality, because this design IS God's creation.
And this design/intent couldn't be much more evident. It's male-female.
That has been exactly my experience.
Not always, I know for a certainty that my cousin wasn't recruited and it wasn't environmental.
Your bias is showing.
For that species, yes. You have a very flimsy stance on nature. On one hand you say that God made nature the way it is and on the other hand you decide that you, Jorge, are the one fit to judge what is naturally occuring outside of the parameters of objective observation. If a species eats its young, then based on a theological argument, is that not how God made that species? You believe that God made every facet of nature, well did God stop at defining how each species interacts with its young?
You obviously missed the distinction I made between nature as God created it, and nature in it's fallen corrupted state.
It's still easy to see God's created intent in spite of the corruption of nature, which is what I have been trying to explain to you.
You only seem to comprehend select parts of my responses, and are losing track of which statement of yours I was responding to.
For example; You implied that because homosexuality can be observed among some animals, it was natural behavior and could therefore be call natural for some humans.
My response above is that some animals eat their young, and by your definitions this is "natural". Therefore would you also say that if some humans eat their children we MUST call this "natural" child rearing behavior?
By insisting on leaving God out of the picture, your arguments are leading to some grotesque conclusions.
If you can't see this, the isn't much point in my trying to convince you of anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.