An aspect of our bisexual natures

[M. Wolfe]

I was having a long discussion today with a friend of mine, about sexuality as I see it. We were talking about the brain scans done on gay & strait men & women where it was shown that a gay man's brain acted like a strait women's brain in response to some sexual stimulus and vice versa.

We were also talking about how this hard-wiring was from birth, hence the testimony of people saying "I always was".

Anyway she asked me a good question that got me thinking, "Whence commest bisexuality?"

At first my mind jumped to the idea of innate bisexuality, but then I thought again....
What if, instead of bisexuality being neither homosexual or heterosexual but a kind of mid-ground, bisexuality (I'm thinking the more typical from bisexuality) is actually both homosexuality and heterosexuality simultaneously? So that a bisexual actually has two sexualities.

I find this to be a compelling argument because it makes more sense. For instance my tastes in boys is vastly different to my tastes in girls, it's not a crazy blend of the two (though I know that some do like to mix it up). Two distinct sets of attractions would imply two me to distinct sexualities working independantly.

If this were true, we would expect to things. First of which is that brain scans of a bisexual's brain reacting to stimulus would emulate a gay brain patterns for same-sex stimuli and strait brain patterns for opposite-sex stimuli.

Second, innate bisexuality wouldn't exist. In it's stead would be innate asexuality - answering the question "Whence commest asexuality."

Although the second, being speculative in the first place, would be unprovable.




What do you guys think?



***

[M. Wolfe]

More research needs to be done.
I think that someone's sexuality is genetic and that science will eventually prove this and this does not mean that it is herditary but sometimes it can be random.

There is no evidence for a genetic basis. Science has taken quite an interest in sexuality over the last 20-30 years. One of the major findings was the discovery that gay men have a great tendency to have older brothers, even if they didn't grow up with said brothers the effect is still strong. The explanation is that a mother's body chemistry plays a great roll. Findings have shown that a woman becomes resistant to testosterone, more so each time she caries a baby boy.

And yes I'd be keen to have ma head scanned.


Also from the article:


But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.

It's effectively saying that stable Kinsey scale 3's are obscenely hard to find. I'm a 2 and I am far from stable. I don't see the big deal here, - ok the headline was a bit harsh, but this is SCIENCE!

[Raindrops+Sunshowers]

I wouldn't personally phrase it as science not having all the answers (which strikes me as a mere tautology). I would personally say that science, while noble, is limited (and when honestly done, is completely up-front about its limitations), and is influenceable by human agenda and emotion.

I do believe there is always the potential to arrive at a scientific explanation for anything in the universe, because science is simply the study and understanding of reality. But it simply may be a long and difficult road for any given topic, or it may be left still unsolved by the time of our species extinction...

In any case, I'll enjoy my particular personalized version of bi-gaiety, and push towards greater societal compassion for human variety, which is a good thing no matter what explanations turn out to eventually explain...

[M. Wolfe]

How is sexuality not genetic?

Because it just isn't. If it were, homosexuality wouldn't exist as it would be a deleterious trait which natural selection would quash fast.


I was born not heterosexual, I did not always know this but eventually over time I figured it out about myself. It certainly was not a choice and I don't know anyone who is heterosexual who would actually want to be or wishes that they were bisexual or gay if they could pick their sexuality.

So.


OK so what about the men who are gay who are only children? Or what if they are the oldest brother/child in the family?

It's a trend, not a law.


See what I'm getting at? Science does not have all the answers and it is not always good to put people into boxes/categories as there are billions of people in the world and not everyone is the same.

People don't have to be the same to be categorized. I don't get why so many are anti-label.


Scientists can say that a study/survey proves something or that it's a major discover but then when you actually do look at how they did the study or survey you find out that they only used a small number of people or that the study was biased in some way.

Firstly there is no proof in science, only evidence. And secondly, weak studies don't make it through peer review.


Even the research that Dr. Kinsey did while it was good for bisexuality and homosexuality was biased and not a good representation of the general population.

And his work is understood as such. Are you normally so anti-science? Science seeks to explain, any under appreciated individual should respect it as such.

[M. Wolfe]

The Fraternal Birth Order Effect.


The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation. According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of developing a homosexual sexual orientation by 28%–48%. The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.

The fraternal birth order effect has also been observed among male-to-female transsexuals: MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in men have a greater number of older brothers than MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in women. This has been reported in samples from Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Polynesia.

The effect has been found even in males not raised with their biological brothers, suggesting an in-utero environmental causation. To explain this finding, a maternal immune response has been hypothesized. Male fetuses produce H-Y antigens which may be involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates. Other studies have suggested the influence of birth order was not due to a biological, but a social process.

Theories of what causes the effect

Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.

The fraternal birth order effect appears to have the opposite effect in right-handed individuals than non-right-handed individuals; however, the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males.

Bogaert (2006) replicated the fraternal birth order effect on male sexual orientation, in a sample including both biological siblings and adopted siblings. Only the older biological brothers influenced sexual orientation; there was no effect of adopted siblings. Bogaert concluded that his finding strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.

McConaghy (2006) published in a sociological journal that he found no relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings, leading him to conclude that the influence of birth order on degree of homosexual feelings was not due to a biological, but a social process.Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_sexual_orientation)

[elastisexual]

I think out natural ability to reason beyond the comparative abilities of other creatures will make us more prone to less generalization.Its easy to say some dogs will have sexual urges with both sexes due to hormone sensitivity but humans think in a more complex manner.
Some one once said to simplify another person is to simplify yourself and i take this to mean that by saying in this instance that someone is hardwired to be a certain sexuality is a simplification of a much greater thing that encompeses
more then just the hardwired in us.
We are multifaceted each one of us lets not make the mistake of selling others short and thus ourselves.I do enjoy the conversation of this though as it stimulates mature thinking.And gay is an act that we perform,bisexual is an act we perform ,straight is an act we perform.The persistance and attitude of these acts reinforce the labels we give to them.
Of course i realize i could be totally wrong and will be interested if anyone responds to what i have posted. I accept criticizim as well as i accept love.

[MetaSexual2]

M. Wolfe - you've done pretty well in coming close to the conclusion that most experts have... that there may be two distinct brain states associated with same-sex and opposite sex attraction. As you say, if this is true, bisexuals would be capable of expressing both states. Be aware though that current scanning technology (fMRI usually) leaves a lot to be desired, so the results can't be fully trusted.

A couple of things to think about though... there is most likely is a genetic component for tendencies one way or the other, but this is probably strongly socially driven. There is just too much evidence for genetic patterning of the brain through hormonal expression for there not to be any inherent genetic effects. There are also a lot of reasons for why evolutionary pressure might keep behavioural flexibility around in an organism. In social organisms, just because a particular member of the society doesn't breed, it doesn't mean that they aren't providing a benefit for survival of their group (and by extension their genes).

Also, the two state idea is probably still too simple though. Attraction to males or females is probably one of the primary drivers for sexual desire, but there are a lot of other ways the brain can get its kicks.

[goldenfinger]

So where does that leave the 13 types of bisexual someone posted about in another tread. Talking about split personality. However, I do believe it hold true for 100% homosexuals.

[darkeyes]

.... that lesbians are all masculine.....
Me is????:tong:

[elian]

I think there are multiple factors, genetics, environment, social norms - that all play a part - some elements are wired, some triggers are present and some behavior is programmed.

The ability of men to express "love" for each other publicly without backlash has waxed and waned over the years with the whims and fashions of society. I think that while there are certainly ways that each person is different society ultimately plays one of the bigger roles in determining the ego people portray outside of themselves. I know a lot of guys who really don't WANT to portray themselves as the typical masculine guy but that is what society tells them they need to be. It takes a very strong and courageous person to live outside those norms.

Hmm, like violent homophobes for example - if society told these people that it was OK to not comply with being "manly" maybe they would have a greater sense of self worth, be comfortable with their own bodies, not to have to always be "proving" things and have a bit more compassion towards others - on a related note, isn't marketing great?

[bityme]

There is no evidence for a genetic basis. Science has taken quite an interest in sexuality over the last 20-30 years.

And there is no evidence for a lack of a genetic basis.

The Human Genome Project was just completed in 2003. Although the 13 year project accumulated tons of information, the majority of it still has to be analyzed. While most researchers believe that there is not a single "gay gene," who knows what they will find as they analyze various combinations?

I am convinced, from my own study of psychology, that sexual orientation is not purely psychological. I must therefore conclude that there is a genetic component. My personal speculation is that they will eventually identify a spectrum of genetic combinations that will account for the wide variety in human sexuality. Unfortunately, I will probably be long gone before that conclusion is reached, or not.

[M. Wolfe]

And there is no evidence for a lack of a genetic basis.

Why would you want there to be a genetic basis? All the research in that area has turned up nothing. It seems to be a chemical issue in gestation than anything else psychological or genetic.

[Bi-Zarro]

It certainly was not a choice and I don't know anyone who is heterosexual who would actually want to be or wishes that they were bisexual or gay if they could pick their sexuality.

Oh, I dunno...I don't doubt there are some lonely heterosexuals who probably think that if they were queer they'd get laid more easily...

[noabody]

It might be useful to add some kind of poll to this post. Do bisexuals believe they were born that way or was there a social component. The other day I read about a woman here that saw her female roommate naked and she knew right then and there that she wanted her. Is that genetic disposition?

I think my bisexuality was a learned trait born from self-love and jealousy of women. I tend to seek men and women that have physical features similar to mine; thin small breasted women, smooth thin men. You might argue that it's simple narcissism or that I am so comfortable with myself that's what I seek in others. Female/Male attraction is about a 90/10 split.

But for that ten percent attraction to men I desire the same things as from women, an emotional connection, to spend time together, to have loving embrace. So I consider myself bisexual, but it's a learned trait.

[M. Wolfe]

Twin studies demonstrate the unlikeliness of a genetic component. There are large amounts of twins and identical twins out there who are gay but have strait twins


Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexualSource: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Now, if there were a strong genetic component, these numbers (excluding adoptive) would be far far higher. In identical twins, they'd be almost at 100%.

Also the different number ratios for males and females suggests that some part of sexual-dimorphism (that which is different between the sexes) is having an affect. Hormones are likely here.

[bityme]

Twin studies demonstrate the unlikeliness of a genetic component. There are large amounts of twins and identical twins out there who are gay but have strait twins

Source: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Now, if there were a strong genetic component, these numbers (excluding adoptive) would be far far higher. In identical twins, they'd be almost at 100%.

Also the different number ratios for males and females suggests that some part of sexual-dimorphism (that which is different between the sexes) is having an affect. Hormones are likely here.

Your conclusion assumes that genetic disposition is a "you either have the gene or you don't" situation. I believe they will find that the genetics of sexuality will eventually be found to be a range of gene combinations that account for the wide range of sexual disposition.

If sexuality were a single gene determination, they would have identified the "heterosexual gene" long ago.

[MetaSexual2]

Twin studies demonstrate the unlikeliness of a genetic component. There are large amounts of twins and identical twins out there who are gay but have strait twins

Source: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Now, if there were a strong genetic component, these numbers (excluding adoptive) would be far far higher. In identical twins, they'd be almost at 100%.

Also the different number ratios for males and females suggests that some part of sexual-dimorphism (that which is different between the sexes) is having an affect. Hormones are likely here.

I think you need to go back and look at those numbers again... 52% of male, and 48% of female monozygotic twins being homosexual is extremely strong statistical evidence there is a genetic component. It would only be near 100% if genetics was the only factor affecting whether someone displayed homosexual behaviour. You need to do some more reading in data analysis and genetics to understand the arguments you are making.