What does gay look like?

[JesusA (imported)]

What does gay look like?

Science keeps trying to figure that out

Finding common biological traits -- things like hair growth patterns, penis size, family makeup -- might one day shed light on the origins of sexual orientation.

By Regina Nuzzo

Special to The Times

Los Angeles Times

Monday, June 16, 2008

Last month, Sen. John McCain dropped by “Saturday Night Live,” (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... n-tak.html) drawing laughs from his promise, if elected president, to fight expensive federal projects -- such as, he spoofed, a Department of Defense device to "jam gaydar."

That was a joke. But some scientists are, in a way, working on gaydar, the supposed ability to discern whether a person is homosexual by reading subtle cues from their appearance. Just don't refer to it that way. The preferred term is "sexual orientation correlates."

These scientists are searching for innate traits that might not appear to be related to sexual orientation or even to standard clichés. So measuring a subject's shoe size is permissible; asking about ownership of Barbra Streisand albums would be cheating. Some inborn traits might be expected if homosexuality is -- as most scientists believe -- rooted in biology, and they might provide clues about the biological origins of sexual orientation.

Finding and solidifying these links isn't easy. Studies contradict each other, and some promising paths don't pan out. (A link between male homosexuality and finger lengths (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su ... 289071_ITM) isn't holding up, and a claim that gays have distinctive fingerprint ridge patterns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/55169.stm) is largely discredited.) Scientists don't always agree on how to interpret the results, and more progress has been made with regard to men than to women.

* Big brothers. Study after study -- including one of 87,000 British men published last year -- has found that gay men have more older brothers than straight men do. (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/28/10531) Only big brothers count. Lesbians don't show such patterns.

The numbers: Each older brother will increase a man's chances of being gay by 33%, says Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto, an expert on the "big-brother effect." That's not as dramatic as it might sound. A man's chance of being gay is pretty low to begin with -- perhaps as low as 2% (lowered from 10% by researchers in the early 1990s). So having one older brother ups the chance to only about 2.6%.

What it might mean: Psychological influences are probably not at work, because the pattern holds even for gay men who weren’t raised with their older brothers. (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/28/10771) Instead, the mother's womb might be key. After giving birth to a boy, her immune system might create antibodies to foreign, male proteins in her bloodstream. Subsequent sons in the womb could be exposed to these "anti-boy" antibodies, which might affect sexual development in the brain.

Accordingly, you'd expect the percentage of gay men in a society to vary depending on demographic differences in family size: One study calculated that a one-child-per-family law would reduce male homosexuality by about 29% from current levels.

* Left hand vs. right hand. The hand you use to sign your name might have something to do with what gender you are drawn to.

The numbers: More lefties -- or at least more somewhat-ambidextrous folks -- crop up in the gay population than among straight people, several studies have shown. An analysis (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 071931.htm) of more than 23,000 men and women from North America and Europe in 2000 found that being non-right-handed seems to increase a man's chances of being gay by about 34%, and a woman's by about 90%.

What it might mean: One guess is that different-than-normal levels of testosterone in the womb -- widely theorized to play a role in determining eventual sexual orientation -- could nudge a fetus toward brain organization that favors left-handedness as well as same-sex attraction.

Another theory is that development of a fetus might be disturbed by factors such as a mother's illness, steering the fetus into being less than strictly right-handed -- and, in some cases, less than strictly heterosexual.

It's a politically sticky idea, says Qazi Rahman of Queen Mary-University of London. "It's essentially saying that homosexual preference . . . is some kind of biological error," he says. (It might tick off the left-handed folks too.)

* Hair whorl. How does your hair grow? This might reflect your sexual orientation.

The numbers: A 2004 study (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf) of nearly 500 men -- 272 on Delaware's Rehoboth Beach, popular with gay men, 200 on a beach without that reputation -- found that hair on the heads of men on the gay beach was 3.5 times more likely to grow in a counterclockwise direction. (Scalp hair typically resembles a clockwise-rotating typhoon.)

What it might mean: One theory is that a single gene might influence hair-whorl direction, left-right brain organization and, somehow, sexual orientation. Exactly how it would do all this, however, is anyone's guess.

The study, although intriguing, suffers from a lack of scientific rigor. The author walked around while on vacation, collecting hair-whorl observations on men from a discreet distance. He didn't know anyone's sexual orientation for sure, and didn't objectively examine any scalps up close. Rahman's group is attempting to replicate the results in the lab.

* Penis size. If exposure to testosterone in the womb influences sexual orientation, scientists reckon that straight and gay people would differ in body parts strongly affected by testosterone, such as the penis.

The numbers: Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario and his colleagues re-analyzed data on 5,000 gay and straight men from sexologist Alfred Kinsey's famous files, collected from the 1930s to the 1960s. The results, published in 1999, showed that gay men had longer, thicker penises than did straight men (http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/wo ... 1/04/size/): on average, about 6.5 inches long and 4.95 inches around when erect, versus 6.1 inches long and 4.8 inches around for straight men.

What it might mean: Scientists don't really know. One guess is that gay men could have been exposed to an odd mix of hormones in the womb. Testosterone levels might peak early, causing enhanced penis growth, then drop off later in pregnancy -- leading to some feminine characteristics.

There's one catch: Kinsey asked his subjects to measure themselves at home and mail a postcard recording their dimensions. It is within the realm of imagination that not every man reported the perfect truth. If everyone lied, the essence of the results wouldn't change. It's a problem only if gay men were more factually creative than straight men.

Bogaert says that all the measures -- length and circumference, erect and flaccid -- seem to plausibly line up, which probably wouldn't be the case if the men had tacked on a vanity half-inch or so. Also, a smaller, 1960s study (in which a physician did the measuring) backs up the findings. As to whether gay or straight men are more likely to exaggerate about penis size, "It would be an interesting master's thesis project," Bogaert muses.

However, the next frontier in this kind of research seems to lie elsewhere -- with subtle differences in how gay and straight brains navigate new cities (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 135205.htm), respond to erotic movies (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... ??SRETRY=0) and react to the scent of sweat and urine (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356).

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-he-sex16 ... 8320.story

[plix (imported)]

Some interesting thoughts

I don't know enough, and I don't really think anyone knows enough, to say for sure how sexual orientation develops. Although many might like to believe it is 100% biological, there is no proof that this is true. Likewise, there is no proof that it is 100% environmental. My personal, non-scientific belief is that both biology and environment are likely to play a role. I see no reason to believe without evidence to the contrary that it is exclusively one or the other.

Left-handedness pops up as greater in just about every pathology out there, so I'm not sure we can say it has anything to do with sexual orientation. Besides, there are without question a number of left-handed men who are straight, and there are a number of men who meet the other criteria but are straight.

I guess one of my two main concerns with using apperance characteristics to determine sexual orientation is that if such characteristics were proven to be true on average, people are going to forget that it is on average and that not every man who has one or more of these characteristics is gay. There will still be plenty of men with these characteristics who are straight. There is an exception to every rule (including this one).

My other concern is what someone mentions in the article, that if biological characteristics are determined to cause sexual orientation, this information will be used to justify that homosexuality is a "biological error," and we will see people try and develop ways to prevent these "errors," including, if necessary, the prevention of people found to have such errors from ever being born.

If something like a specific gene or two that leads to homosexuality is discovered, wouldn't the presence of such a gene be considered "pathological?" Homosexuality is not the norm, and does not serve a major purpose of life - reproduction. Thus, why shouldn't it be eliminated? If we could determine a way to find this gene in the embryonic state, might destroying embryos found with the gene become necessary or at least desirable? (Keep in mind these are not my personal views - they are views I am concerned this information could be used to justify).

If it were up to me, we wouldn't care what causes homosexuality because it wouldn't matter, so we''d stop spending any time or money on researching it. Gay people should be treated with no less respect regardless of whether they are born that way, they learn to be that way, or they choose to be that way. I think a lot of people want homosexuality to have biological origins because they somehow believe that homosexuality is "wrong" if it is environmental or a personal choice. Even people who do not oppose homosexuality seem to hold this belief. I never have understood that argument, and I probably never will.

Oh, well. I guess we should be glad it isn't up to me

[A-1 (imported)]

Jesus,

If you really want to know ask some kids, they are forever saying, "That looks Gay", so they MUST know what Gay looks like, huh?

there are logical explainations for all of these facts.

Take the penis size, for example. Just like any muscle, take biceps for example, the more you use them the bigger they get.

Gay men have more sex than straight men. So, what would you expect? IT is exercise, that is nurture, not nature that causes this apparent size difference.

It does not work for female breasts, though. Otherwise there would have been some 14 year old girls in my Junior High that would have had to have breast reduction surgery as Sophomores in High School...

It is sad to see some of those former "tight bodies" at 50+ However, the mammories...er... make that memories are delightful.

...and did you know that left-handed people are the only ones in their RIGHT MIND?

Sometimes it is nurture that CAUSES nature.

...again, you can get used to many things, tastes, smells and so forth. I cannot believe that people are doing Science this sloppy.

...Besides that, as I have told you in the past, correlation does NOT imply causation.

...Unless you have some pretty tight scientific theories correlation can cause BAD SCIENCE.

...or worse, NAZI SCIENCE...

[StefanIsMe (imported)]

Well... gotta side with A-1 here, but coincidentally...;

It's not so much the fact that my best friend has 3 older brothers, is left handed, has counter-clockwise hair whorls, and a schlong as long as a sarong that makes him gay; I think its more the fact that he loves to suck cock like a banshee on crack that qualifies him. And I should know...

wheeeeeee

[curious_guy (imported)]

I think that most gay haters justify their hate (to themselves and others) by claiming that gays are either evil sinners who chose to be gay because they are evil, or they are recruited as children by older gays.

If it could be proven that gayness is mostly biological, then they would have a harder time justifying their hate.

[A-1 (imported)]

I think that most gay haters justify their hate (to themselves and others) by claiming that gays are either evil sinners who chose to be gay because they are evil, or they are recruited as children by older gays.

If it could be proven that gayness is mostly biological, then they would have a harder time justifying their hate.

All hate & haters aside, I feel that science cannot make a determination where the line lies between Nature and Nurture regarding Gayness.

But regardless, I, too, feel that it has become much more of an issue that it really needs to be. I mean, really, in the scheme of things, what real difference does it make and whose business is it?

A nice example of nurture that causes nature would be smoking and lung cancer. A person with the genetic tendancy for lung cancer is more susceptable to cigarette smoke than one who is not.

While the issue of sexual orientation can be regarded as a compulsion or a choice, I believe that each indivudal is unique in what things may or may not influence their sexual preference.

At what level each person operates is as unique as individual DNA, but getting an actual handle on how this operates is going to be something that will not be known until many generations of human kind into the future.

[raymar2020 (imported)]

I have to post to this thread.

I want to add an additional possible factor to the list. As a child with undescended testicles, who has never had them dropped,I was treated by a pediatric urologist, who partnered with an endorinologist, to treat boys like me. In that group were boys born without testicles, and boys who lost their undescended testicles to infection, and others like myself who just did not have viable testicles.

The good doctors , in seeking to have us be comfortable with our differences , tried to match boys who lived close together , so that we would have "friends" like us. While not my everyday playmates, these boys that I met became a part of my life. It was gratifying to have a sleep over where no one looked twice at the parts I was missing, and the same was true for the others.

The doctors also hosted several parties for all their patients each year, that usually included swimming, and in the nude. The plan was to make us comfortable with our bodies in front of others. Many of these boys went on to have surgery to drop their testicles, and dropped out of the group. A few I ran into later in life. Virtually all of the boys from that group are gay.

Additionally , due to my lack of visible testicles, as a gay man who catted around quite a bit in my younger days, I was amazed at the number of guys who either had the scars from testicle release surgery , or clearly remembered that their testicles dropped at age 8 or 10 or 12.

Over the course of my nearly 50 years, I have yet to meet a guy who had late descending testicles(after age 18 months) that wasn't gay. maybe testicles have a much more important role in sexual identity than anyone realizes.

Another point, the studies showing that gay men have larger penises than straight , is very flawed. I personally am on the very low side of average in length, but a bit on the thick side. I have known (intimately) way more gay men who were 6 or less, than I have 6 or over. If us gay guys have the bigger dicks, no wonder that women are always bitchy!!!. LOL

I will agree with left handedness, as while I am very ambidextrous, I can only do certain things left handed, Mastubating being one of them. Right handed, I can't even keep it stiff, but left handed, I can get there every time.

I also know a huge number of left handed gay men.

The more that science looks at sexuality, the more confusing it becomes. Reality is that for me , and millions of others, being gay is just what I am .I never have felt repulsed by women, but I do find that there is no sexual attraction. Men however, can make me breathe heavy just looking at them. Its been that way as long as I can remember, so I personally am convinced that my "gayness" is genetic.

Ray

[snoopy (imported)]

Gay men have more sex than straight men. So, what would you expect? IT is exercise, that is nurture, not nature that causes this apparent size difference.

Hmmm... i've been gay all my life, even before i understood there was a name for it (gay, queer, fag, homosexual, whatever), and from my own personal experiences, and those of my partner, i'm not sure i agree with that. Do you know something here that i don't? Sounds like another stereotype that's been repeated so many times people are starting to believe that it's true.

Another stereotype is that gay men can't be monogamous... wish they'd look at my relationship (over 5.5 monogamous years) and other gay couples i've met.

As for gaydar... think mine is buggy cause it hasn't worked in years, or maybe i need to replace the batteries cause their shelf life is long past.

[Danya (imported)]

As an over-educated scientist type, I tend to find these types of studies fascinating. I certainly agree with the conclusion of this one: Essentially 'What does it all mean? We really don't know.'

Do studies like this really matter in the end? Perhaps it does if a collection of physical traits is someday found that can predict with fairly high certainty the individual expression of same sex erotic attraction. There is always the danger with science that knowledge, or even presumed knowledge, will be used in unethical ways.

I decided to create a separate thread on 'What does transgender look like?' (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=13529) simply because I find it interesting. The abstract there looks at finger length ratios only.

[A-1 (imported)]

Hmmm... i've been gay all my life, even before i understood there was a name for it (gay, queer, fag, homosexual, whatever), and from my own personal experiences, and those of my partner, i'm not sure i agree with that. Do you know something here that i don't? Sounds like another stereotype that's been repeated so many times people are starting to believe that it's true.

Another stereotype is that gay men can't be monogamous... wish they'd look at my relationship (over 5.5 monogamous years) and other gay couples i've met.

As for gaydar... think mine is buggy cause it hasn't worked in years, or maybe i need to replace the batteries cause their shelf life is long past.

The stereotype was true during the late 70's - early 80's from a statistical standpoint. Of course, the studies were not controlled for those respondents who may have been in the closet, so to speak.

Judging frm the statistics borne out by the AIDS epidemic, HIV seemed to spread quicker among Gay men than in any other population segment. Possibly due to the the promiscuity of the Gay community in theat era.

I highly recommend THIS (http://www.locatetv.com/tv/time-of-aids ... &HBX_OU=50) video series as the best documentary of the AIDS epidemic.

It is fascinating...

To get a "flavor" of what Gay communities were like in the 1970's click here... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Rfq_dB ... hould-see/)

...life was different for EVERYONE back then...

this is a good theory of the origins of AIDS.. (http://webmerica.org/2007/01/08/the-ori ... ver-watch/)