Malleable Sexuality
Sexuality
| February 15, 2006
| Tim
Modern "progressive" belief has a somewhat double-minded approach to sexual malleability.
On one hand, we are to believe, apparently, that homosexuality is innate -- surely it rests on some gene somewhere. A gay man, for example, cannot change his orientation. (Never mind those men claiming they have.) On the other hand, we are apparently perfectly fine with the idea of heterosexuals "experimenting" with homosexuality, and even, um, switching preferences.
And though we are almost completely convinced that homosexuality is genetic (the only thing lacking is any kind of scientific evidence), we are also absolutely convinced that an aversion to homosexual relations could not be likewise innate. Gays must be blameless for preferring homosexual relations, whereas "homophobes" must be found to be morally reprehensible.
In contrast, I believe human sexual preference is generally malleable; it is based on both childhood and adult experience; and that the degree to which it is malleable in a particular individual has a genetic component.
For example, I was surprised to discover research that indicated that if a girl's first sexual experience is with a woman, she is many, many times more likely to become a lesbian. There are only two explanations for this, and only the second seems plausable to me: (1) Lesbians can nearly flawlessly predict a young girl's future "orientation", will only approach known future lesbians, or (2) the experience itself changes a girl's orientation.
That said, here is an article in the New Zealand Herald which seems to lend credence to my suspicions:
Being highly sexed changes men's and women's sexual orientation in startlingly different ways, an academic study has concluded.
Dr Richard Lippa, a sex expert at California State University, has found that highly sexed women are 27 times as likely as men to become attracted to their own sex.... For most women, a high sex drive increases sexual attraction to men and women. In men, a high sex drive simply exaggerates existing sexual orientation.
It's not clear if they're talking about "drive" or "experience". My guess is that they are saying that experience changes a woman's attractions, because it is probably rather difficult to measure actual hormone levels via questionaire. (It is possible to have a high sex drive and yet not sleep around much, so the two are probably only somewhat corelated.)
This would seem to be yet more evidence against the "10%" myth:
The survey, of more than 3500 people, was published in this month's Psychological Science. It showed that 0.3 per cent of men and 8 per cent of women were attracted to their own sex.
And it also seems to fly in the face of the dogma which says that the percent of homosexuals isn't increasing:
Data from last year's BBC Sex Survey is expected to show twice as many bisexual women (6 per cent) as lesbians (3 per cent) in Britain. Numbers of women who had tried lesbian sex more than doubled between 1990 and 2000.
That's not categorical, since it doesn't indicate if there's a shift in the number of women who continue as lesbians, but I find it unlikely that the number of people trying a product wouldn't co-relate somehow with the number of people buying it.
I agree with almost all of what you're saying here.
because it is probably rather difficult to measure actual hormone levels via questionaire.
I don't know about all sex hormones, but testosterone can be reliably tested via a spit test.
we are also absolutely convinced that an aversion to homosexual relations could not be likewise innate. Gays must be blameless for preferring homosexual relations, whereas "homophobes" must be found to be morally reprehensible.
IIRC The term "homophobe" originally came from a study showing that men who demonstrated a sexual response to gay porn but did not self-identify as 'gay' were dramatically more likely to have violent anti-gay feelings. Applying the term to those people who are not suppressing strong feelings of homoeroticism is a very common and essentially unfair broadening of the term.
I was surprised to discover research that indicated that if a girl's first sexual experience is with a woman, she is many, many times more likely to become a lesbian. There are only two explanations for this, and only the second seems plausable to me: (1) Lesbians can nearly flawlessly predict a young girl's future "orientation", will only approach known future lesbians, or (2) the experience itself changes a girl's orientation.
Were you really surprised? While I generally agree with what you're saying in the OP, isn't your assumption in writing this dichotomy that lesbians are essentially forcing themselves upon young girls, and the girl's choice has no bearing on the matter? Nature or nurture aside for a second, if a person (the young lesbian) makes a very non-standard choice when they're young then they're more likely to make that same non-standard choice when they're older.
Perhaps it would make things clearer, when discussing this issue, to differentiate "sexual identity" from sexual arousal? In which cases do the people who change the first change the second?
Interesting tradition you have going here. You posted this article on February 15th 2006. Last year it was Feb 14th 2005.
Is there a reason that you write an article on homosexuality every valentine's day?
On one hand, we are to believe, apparently, that homosexuality is innate
The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length is negatively correlated with exclusive male homosexual behavior (Self described behavior, I assume)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11053694&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum
There is evidence that the ratio of the length of 2nd and 4th digits (2D:4D) is negatively related to prenatal testosterone and positively to oestrogen.
Regarding lesbians, here's one study where bloodwork was done on an extensive number of lesbian and heterosexual women seeking fertility treatment.
It has a rather odd result. Lesbians had a far higher incidence of PCOS, a disease which elevates a womans androgenic hormones, than heterosexual women. (Eighty percent of lesbian women, compared with 32% of the heterosexual women, had PCO on pelvic ultrasound examination... lesbian women with PCO and PCOS had significantly higher androgen concentrations compared with heterosexual women with PCO and PCOS.)
However there were no significant differences in androgenic levels between hetero and homosexual women without PCOS (at least at baseline. It doesn't say when sexually aroused)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15533359&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
While it's hard to do tests on a person while they're engaged in sex, these results may imply that the body of a woman predisposed to lesbianism produces more androgens in response to stimulation (in this case, stimulation via a cyst.) Higher androgens = higher sex drive = more sexual behavior (towards men or women, based on psychological factors and personal choice.)
But that's just speculation on my part, and not confirmed.
All a person's actions are "choices." A person is still responsible for controlling their own temper, even if that temper has a biological basis. But it does seem that people's sexual orientation does, in fact, have an innate and demonstratable biological component.
Interesting tradition you have going here. You posted this article on February 15th 2006. Last year it was Feb 14th 2005. Is there a reason that you write an article on homosexuality every valentine's day?
Hmmmmm:
(a) It could be that I'm secretly a repressed homosexual. Frankly, that would quite a surprise to my girlfriend. Not to mention myself!
(b) I tend to respond to media. Perhaps they tend to publish more articles about homosexuality on Valentines Day? That would be an interesting thesis.
(c) Perhaps I've mentioned it enough times in recent years that there was about one every month? Or less, actually, since I've been blogging here 3 years now, and apparently just hit 2/3.
I was curious about possibility (b), so I did a bit of research, searching for "XXXXX 13" on Google (where "XXXXX" is the name of each month), restricting my search to New York Times, which sets the lead for many papers.
Results:
January 13: 314
January 14: 337
February 13: 588
February 14: 566
March 13: 465
March 14: 410
April 13: 381
April 14: 407
May 13: 661
May 14: 343
June 13: 467
June 14: 322
July 13: 428
July 14: 354
August 13: 338
August 14: 284
September 13: 309
September 14: 360
October 13: 395
October 14: 453
November 13: 428
November 14: 401
December 13: 389
December 14: 424
Intersting: There seems to be a sustained spike of "gay"-related stories coming from the New York Times right around Valentines' Day. Nearly 1,200 hits over two days -- where, the average month seems to have around 750 on those two days.
So I decided to carry this one further (I didn't feel like repeating the experiment for each month, forgive me) and see if I could see a sustained spike forming in the days leading up to Valentine's Day:
February 1: 583
February 2: 706
February 3: 492
February 4: 467
February 5: 525
February 6: 523
February 7: 503
February 8: 581
February 9: 529
February 10: 444
February 11: 468
February 12: 644
February 13: 588
February 14: 566
February 15: 457
February 16: 519
February 17: 465
February 18: 486
Overall, February seems to be a rather "gay" month. Perhaps it's just my imagination, but there seems to be a 3-day spike right on the 12th-14th, with the number of stories hovering around 600 for three days.
Perhaps this is a co-incidence, or not statistically significant. Or perhaps the NY Times gets interested in this topic around this time of year. Or perhaps various pro- (or even anti-?) gay groups tend to schedule media-attracting events around this period of time.
Interesting thesis: wish I had access to Lexis/Nexus.
Couldn't resist following up on Ryan's comments regarding PCOS and sexuality - or more specifically, sex drive.
Ryan wrote:
"While it's hard to do tests on a person while they're engaged in sex, these results may imply that the body of a woman predisposed to lesbianism produces more androgens in response to stimulation (in this case, stimulation via a cyst.) Higher androgens = higher sex drive = more sexual behavior (towards men or women, based on psychological factors and personal choice.)
But that's just speculation on my part, and not confirmed."
I have PCOS and have had it since pre-puberty (ie. 20 years-ish). In that time I have heard doctors say I should have an increased sex drive and that testosterone has the effect of increasing it. I even heard one female endocrinologist say that she wished she had PCOS. Frankly, it's all incorrect. I'm sure that increased testosterone increases the male sex drive, but the female sex drive is more complex.
I heard a Professor from the Jean Hailes Institute (who study PCOS and its effects on women) explain that the female libido relies on emotions and the way we feel about our sexual partner. WRT the emotions, if we are overly conscious about our damaged (and therefore sexually unattractive) body then our libido will be low. If we are not feeling a whole lot of love towards our partner, our libido will suffer. Also, deficient progesterone reduces the female libido.
Sure, testosterone has an effect on the female libido, but it's not much of an effect. It's no female viagra!
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Al Gore & L. Ron Hubbard: Separated At Birth? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Democrats Misplaying the "God Card" »
|
I agree with almost all of what you're saying here.
because it is probably rather difficult to measure actual hormone levels via questionaire.
I don't know about all sex hormones, but testosterone can be reliably tested via a spit test.
we are also absolutely convinced that an aversion to homosexual relations could not be likewise innate. Gays must be blameless for preferring homosexual relations, whereas "homophobes" must be found to be morally reprehensible.
IIRC The term "homophobe" originally came from a study showing that men who demonstrated a sexual response to gay porn but did not self-identify as 'gay' were dramatically more likely to have violent anti-gay feelings. Applying the term to those people who are not suppressing strong feelings of homoeroticism is a very common and essentially unfair broadening of the term.
I was surprised to discover research that indicated that if a girl's first sexual experience is with a woman, she is many, many times more likely to become a lesbian. There are only two explanations for this, and only the second seems plausable to me: (1) Lesbians can nearly flawlessly predict a young girl's future "orientation", will only approach known future lesbians, or (2) the experience itself changes a girl's orientation.
Were you really surprised? While I generally agree with what you're saying in the OP, isn't your assumption in writing this dichotomy that lesbians are essentially forcing themselves upon young girls, and the girl's choice has no bearing on the matter? Nature or nurture aside for a second, if a person (the young lesbian) makes a very non-standard choice when they're young then they're more likely to make that same non-standard choice when they're older.
Perhaps it would make things clearer, when discussing this issue, to differentiate "sexual identity" from sexual arousal? In which cases do the people who change the first change the second?
Posted by: Ryan on March 2, 2006 01:59 PM