At 19:26 7/13/98 +0200, extropians@extropy.com wrote:
>"Jim Barnebee" <mutabletao@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> There is no such thing as a "gay gene". Homosexuality is not
>> genetic, but environmental.
My... to have confidence of THAT calibre. I guess all these psych and genetics courses I'm currently enrolled in have spoiled me.
All jokes about blue denim aside, most of the literature I read for my term paper [which focused on sexual orientation] in Behavioral Genetics class last semester leans toward a cluster of markers on the X chromosome [the Xq28 region, if you care] which appear to be linked to at least one subtype of male sexual orientation.
>In a study of more remote relatives, it was observed that for
>homosexual males there was an increase in probability of homosexuality
>on the mother's side, suggesting an X-chromosome linkage (Hamer, Hu,
>Magnussoon, Hu & Pattuccio 1993).
Good choice of papers, Anders. It's one of my favorites.
Beyond that, they've even managed to divvy up the "sexual orientation" concept into 3 or 4 major subcategories. The commonly held definition is simply the sex (or sexes) I'm attracted to. Cool.
Now, in addition, we also care about the sex(es) which is attracted to ME. Some even mix in _my concept_ of which sex(es) I attract and am attracted to.
Yet Jim up above seems to have it all figured out.
>ObTranshuman: An interesting question is what would happen if it was
>possible to relatively simply adjust one's brain to change sexual
>preferences at will. How many people would try it?
Well, for us bisexuals, this isn't really an issue. But one study I read (which I can't seem to find in my collection of papers from Spring... I might have to go re-look it up) had the scientists manipulating one (and only one) facet of sexual orientation I discussed above. That is, trying to change the sex which likes the fruitfly while keeping the fruitfly attracted to the original sex. I'll get to the details when I can find the friggin' paper. (and it was fruitflies in the study, I wasn't disparaging anyone.)
And to whoever that guy was who wrote this...
> The "normal" mating pattern for humans has the young males competing with
> each other to "get laid", i.e. to convince young women to let them
> demonstrate their mating skills. The prize for the winners is a bit of
> sexual experience, which will make them more impressive to the next female
> they mate with. Eventually most of them will impress a female enough to
> form a semi-permanent, largely monogamous partnership.
We don't all live in a frat house. That's the limitation of your "normal" pattern.
America's Favorite Bisexual...
...and a proud 4 on the Kinsey Scale.
Sebastian6
-s6
stantraas@asu.edu
graffix6@infinet-is.com
http://www.public.asu.edu/~kunz1/index.htm
"I'm not the one that causes the annihilation of mankind... you are." -Q, _All Good Things_
RHFC 1.2 v85@A+&P1SRY1995L3{s3} p+B75F1E1Y1995&& cB1P3!A>& i+W2 qNAH2 yA23->18Bp1G{m}H{6'}L{Tucson, AZ}Sb{+m-f}