Interesting article

[mao]

A week or so ago, the Independent on Sunday (a UK newspaper) contained an interesting article about some research that has been published on what determines sexuality. As well as being interesting reading in itself, it did include a penis size element that I thought members of the forum would be interested in seeing and may well have comments/opinions on. I've transcribed a couple of the paragraphs below:

"Born Gay summarises the latest research into the pyschobiology of sex orientation, concluding that studies with twins show that around 30 to 50 per cent of sexual orientation is due to genes. The rest is the result of processes in the womb.

The genes involved in the sexual orientation produce receptors in the brain which absorb male hormones released by the developing baby's testicles. It is thought that in gay men these receptors are less sensitive or are blocked. The absence of testosterone results in the brain developing female characteristics, including attraction to men.

It is also believed that the unabsorbed testosterone affects the body's extremities. This would explain, Dr Rahman [the report co-author] said, why the finger lengths of adult gay men tended to be more male-like than those of heterosexual men, in that their index fingers are significantly shorter than their ring finger. (Women's index and ring fingers tend to be of equal length.)

The hormone may also be responsible for increasing the size of the penis, another extremity. A number of studies have shown that gay men are better endowed than heterosexual men."

Can't say I have strong opinions about that last supposition, though to be honest I haven't exactly slept around loads, and of the half dozen or so people I have slept with, they have seemed to have been all what I would describe as average (about 6") with just one being significantly bigger (over 7.5" I estimate and very thick). As for me, I think the difference in finger length seems to be true, but perhaps less so on the penis size front! (Although people have been complimentary about the girth)

 

[Pecker]

My, what taxpayers have to fund these days. :glare:

 

[madame_zora]

Chimera, I've read studies like that too. I really don't know what to make of it, honestly. I know that the psychological sciences are in their infancy right now, so much is just unknown. I read everything I can because it fascinates me, but I'll have a hard time calling anything conclusive until at least another 20 years or so pass, we just have too little to go on. There are a lot of groupings of people who seem to have several similar characteristics as far as thinking patterns go and even some physical similarities, but I am a bit more reserved in defending ideas of which thing causes or compels which. I do tend to believe that gay guys on average may be bigger than straight guys, but this isn't based on much scientific data, just general observations and having a little more faith in the studies presenting that side than the other. Who knows, perhaps time will tell.

 

[VinceNYC]

Wow, I can see it now. Next they'll be trying to figure out how to "fix" this problem.

There are a couple of things I don't understand about this. First, I thought the finger length study was found to be bad science, so I'm surprised to see the finger length mentioned here as an indicator of sexuality.

Second, the study says that genes are partially responsible, and that hormone absorption comprises the rest of the cause. But if the genes CAUSE the receptors to be blocked (stopping the absorption of testosterone), then it seems that the genes are 100% responsible for sexuality, not 30-50% as the study states.

I have very mixed thoughts and feelings on this type of science. It could be used to further the fight for equality, or it could be used to prove that homosexuals are "broken" and need to be fixed.

 

[Dr Rock]

if my experience is any indication, then yeah, there are more well-hung gay guys than straight guys, certainly.

although my index fingers are barely any shorter than my ring fingers.

PS. whoa ... my left index finger is like a quarter inch shorter than my right one! never noticed that before. you really DO learn something new every daywhen you're CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET

 

[VinceNYC]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 12 2005, 09:32 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 12 2005, 09:32 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-VinceNYC@Jul 12 2005, 08:25 AM
I have very mixed thoughts and feelings on this type of science. It could be used to further the fight for equality, or it could be used to prove that homosexuals are "broken" and need to be fixed.

[post=328506]Quoted post[/post]​

I hear the same arguments from feminists that oppose the study of gender differences. I am wary of people that oppose advances in our understanding of ourselves.

[post=328529]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
I can&#39;t tell from your response if you&#39;re implying that I&#39;m opposed to this research. For the record, I said I have "mixed thoughts and feelings." That&#39;s far from saying I oppose it. I&#39;m simply saying that the research has potential positive and negative consequences.

In addition, many times the pursuit of this information is political in nature. I&#39;m reminded of a study put out years ago that tried to say that sex between men and boys was not damaging to the boy, which was obviously a sad attempt to manipulate information for a political purpose.

You&#39;re very knowledgeable and well-spoken for a 15 year-old

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

My index fingers are actually longer than my ring fingers. What should I make of that? :shrug:

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jul 12 2005, 04:05 PM
My index fingers are actually longer than my ring fingers. What should I make of that? :shrug:

[post=328608]Quoted post[/post]​

You didn&#39;t know it, Jacinto, but you&#39;re straight.

 

[mao]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jul 12 2005, 08:05 PM
My index fingers are actually longer than my ring fingers. What should I make of that? :shrug:

[post=328608]Quoted post[/post]​

Or perhaps all that unabsorbed testosterone went to one particular extremity

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 12 2005, 06:32 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 12 2005, 06:32 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-VinceNYC@Jul 12 2005, 08:25 AM
I have very mixed thoughts and feelings on this type of science. It could be used to further the fight for equality, or it could be used to prove that homosexuals are "broken" and need to be fixed.

[post=328506]Quoted post[/post]​

I hear the same arguments from feminists that oppose the study of gender differences. I am wary of people that oppose advances in our understanding of ourselves.

[post=328529]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Actually, it&#39;s more because 90% of these "X and IQ" studies and "race and X" studies are pure phrenology.

 

[mao]

Originally posted by VinceNYC@Jul 12 2005, 01:25 PM
I have very mixed thoughts and feelings on this type of science. It could be used to further the fight for equality, or it could be used to prove that homosexuals are "broken" and need to be fixed.

[post=328506]Quoted post[/post]​

I certainly think you have a point, but the reaction to this particular study from gay groups in the UK has largely been positive (it puts forward claims about bisexuality that have not been quite so well received). I&#39;ve copied a little more from the article although I would have preferred to link to it directly - unfortunately the Independent charges for their online archive.

The first 2 paragraphs:

"Sexuality is determined well before birth and is not the result of social influences, scientists will claim this week. The authors of a new book published on Thursday say that sexual orientation is decided by a mixture of genetic factors and hormonal activity in the womb - and that homosexuality cannot be "cured"

Born Gay by Dr Glenn Wilson of the Institute of Psychiatry and Dr Qazi Rahman of the University of East London has been welcomed by gay rights activists, who say it proves there is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality."

and the article&#39;s conclusion:

"According to the researchers, there is much evidence to contradict claims that homosexuality is caused by social factors, such as seduction, or that it can be learnt. "Showing that homosexuality is not due to learning, or seduction, or smothering mothers has very clear implications for social policies," Dr Rahman added. "Clause 28 emphasised the notion that homosexuality should not be talked about because that might encourage young people to experiment."

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, said he welcomed evidence that made discrimnation against gay people untenable."

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Shad@Jul 12 2005, 11:28 PM
I mean, you&#39;d leave the ones alive alone, of course, but let&#39;s say I was going to have a kid, IF, while guaranteeing his safety, I could be sure he wouldn&#39;t be homosexual, I believe I&#39;d opt for the choice. He won&#39;t have to go through the difficult time that plagues many gays in our society that IS opening up, slowly but surely.

[post=328681]Quoted post[/post]​

sounds a lot like giving into social homophobia to me. besides, you don&#39;t have the right to make alterations to a perfectly healthy child - the responsibilities of the parent only extend as far as treatment of medical problems, which homosexuality clearly isn&#39;t.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jul 12 2005, 07:34 PM
besides, you don&#39;t have the right to make alterations to a perfectly healthy child - the responsibilities of the parent only extend as far as treatment of medical problems, which homosexuality clearly isn&#39;t.

[post=328686]Quoted post[/post]​

I agree with the good doctor. This kind of thinking smacks of eugenics to me...

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 13 2005, 01:29 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 13 2005, 01:29 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Jul 12 2005, 06:34 PM
the responsibilities of the parent only extend as far as treatment of medical problems, which homosexuality clearly isn&#39;t.

[post=328686]Quoted post[/post]​

Health is relative; an organism with no desire to reproduce is unfit by Darwin&#39;s standard.

[post=328706]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
get a clue, please. what has homosexuality got to do with reproduction?

 

[Freddie53]

I have always wondered what would happen if a bunch of baby boys were raised by male gay couples and they never met girls until they were at least 14 or and saw and new about all gay activity as love between men, but didn&#39;t even know that weren&#39;t told or given any information about females. Then girls were introduced, but not as sexual beings. How would those boys react. If there told that sex betweeen guys of the same age is OK so there would be no boy and adult male sex going on. No knowledge of women as sexual beings. Of course this situation would require total isolation for the world. Perhaps on some tropical island perhaps where even total nudity was practiced by all.

How would it turn out? If there were 100 boyas all the same age raised from infancy. How many would adopt the gay lifestyel as NORMAL and have a boy friend. How many would upon seeing a girl for the first time after the age of puberty, intuitively know and recognize that girls is what they wanted and forget the boys. If they boys were taught that sex with these female creatures was immoral, what percentages of the boys would want to be gay, bi or straight?

Has anyone read about any professional hypothesis about this? My suspecion is that there would be 10 to 15 % who would notice the girls. Of course this is hypothetical as no government would allow such a study. but there has bound to be predictions and beliefs from "experts" has to how it would turn out.

Love to hear your comments whether based on professional or your own judgement. I have often wondered what percent gusy would be openly gay if the gay world was the norm and the straight world was either unknown to the guys are considered wrong for religious reasons. As in sex between man an woman is a sin. That is why we use artificial insemination. The two genders should never come into contact with each other and so goes the theology of this "different religion."

 

[dolf250]

Not having had the opportunity to have sex with any gay men and not having fucked any straight men either I feel unqualified to offer any opinion on the truthfulness of that statement. I will take it at face value and question “so what?” Supposing that gay men average ¼ or ½ and inch larger than straight men would it make any difference? If all gay men were larger it would provide great evidence that it is genetics (it would also force people out of the closet.)
*Look Jim- Over there&#33;&#33;&#33; Wow, he must be REALLY gay.*
As it is there are some straight men larger than gay men and some gay men larger than straight men. I just do not really see what the study was trying to get at.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 13 2005, 02:11 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 13 2005, 02:11 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Jul 12 2005, 08:58 PM
get a clue, please. what has homosexuality got to do with reproduction?

[post=328710]Quoted post[/post]​

That was my point.

[post=328714]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
*sigh* you&#39;ve been told about this before. shooting your mouth off on subjects you know nothing about will NOT encourage people to take you seriously.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by dolf250@Jul 13 2005, 04:58 AM
*Look Jim- Over there&#33;&#33;&#33; Wow, he must be REALLY gay.*

Who needs "gaydar" when there are measuring tapes?

Hey, one of my index fingers is way shorter than the corresponding ring finger but the other ones are just about equal. What does that mean? (other than that I&#39;m such a freak of nature).

Now I&#39;m more convinced that sure finger length is the hidden determinant of our destinies. Anyone here qualified to read palms?

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Shad@Jul 13 2005, 02:24 PM
As such, homosexuality can be consdidered an "error" by standards of nature.

the "standards of nature" do not revolve around any single organism, I&#39;m afraid. reproduction will occur regardless. the assumption that homosexuality and reproduction are mutually exclusive is also terribly naive.

 

[absinthium]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jul 12 2005, 04:05 PM
My index fingers are actually longer than my ring fingers. What should I make of that? :shrug:

[post=328608]Quoted post[/post]​

WITCH&#33; BURN HIM AT THE STAKE&#33;&#33;&#33;