Poll: Is Sexual Orientation Nurture or Nature?

[Rashi_tani]

I think it's nature.
I saw this science show one time that was discussing why some men are more feminine and some women are so masculine.
they tested straight men and gay men and straight women and lesbians.
they saw a part of the brain in the gay men was closer to the size of what the straight women had and the lesbians they tested had it the size closer to the straight men.
the part of the brain was related to hormones and greatly affected body structure and thinking.
I'm not saying all feminine men are gay but i think that it can mostly be a nature thing.

 

[Handofpwn]

The way I was explained it, gay men are, well, gay because they have a tad too much estrogen and other hormones females have in abundance. I would assume the opposite goes for lesbians as well, we never really got into lesbians. I am not sure if this is right or what, but that is what I was taught.

Sorry if this has been said before, just wanted to put out my opinion, not read 5 pages of comments.
Edit: Damn, I posted nearly the exact same thing as the guy above me without even knowing it...

 

[Taylorcrw]

Its already been proven its nature.

 

[maximilian]

You're making a mistake by assuming that the sharp "gay or straight" divide that Western culture has created has a definite basis in biology.

Ah you misunderstand me. That is my exact point. Surely it is chronologically logical for this blurring to be a result of nurture, when something such as genetics or "biology" (whatever that means) is so definite.

 

[maximilian]

they found the "gay" gene not to long ago. It in itself does not make on gay but all gay people have it there is a number of factors and at the very least this gene makes you more likely to be gay and would be such a primary draw to being gay that it would in many ways be fighting your "nature"

If this is actually the case can you give me a link? I'm not being snide, just curious.

Again with the Freud......when will you people learn that there is much more out there in psychology then Freud. birth to 3.....birth to 10.....birth to whenever it doesn't matter. I would have to say that I agree with the humanistic theories of psychology and say that we never stop developing. The most important and formative experiences of our life are happening right now and tomorrow. The past while important and birth to 3 while important to showing us at some basic level how the world works, have little to do in the large picture with who I am as a person today at 24. Modern day psychologist (except neo- Freudians) would have a hard time saying that the most formative and important period of your life is birth to 3 at all. How can they be when I am not able to fully appreciate, reason through, and learn from an experience when I am not mature enough, intelligent enough, or had enough experiences in my life to put it in perspective until I am older then 3.

Ding ding ding.
Freud was a brilliant man. His work is superceded now and I was using that example largely as just that; a layman's example. HOWEVER, the fact that we cannot reason is EXACTLY why those years are SO formative. Read any respected behavioral psychology - it is all Freudian derivative. Similarly, the brain at that stage of life acts much like a sponge, that soaks up all information as it attempts to build a world to understand. When we hit a stage of maturity (in this case 3-4-5 years old) we start to obtain the ability to reason, and our brain becomes more like a sieve - rejecting things we believe to be bad. And THAT stuff is based largely on what we have absorbed earlier. The strength or type of the building is derived from its foundations.

Also while classical psychologist have an easy time categorizing things in little groups (psychoanalytical, behaviorist, humanist, cognitive) most modern day psychologist and other professions with at least some psychological background and experience know that to truly have a picture of what people are you need to borrow from many different schools of thought which is why there are so many different things you must know to be a psychologist.

Exactly. I completely agree. But to throw out what I said earlier with little to no proof just because the words "Freud" and "classical psychology" came up is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Essentially, my point stands.

 

[maximilian]

actually there is good evidence to prove that incorrect that what you are attracted to sexually is wired into your brain. however what IS formed when you are in that age range and going up to the time when you sexually mature is what things you find attractive or any fetishes that may arise.

I don't follow. Of course what you are attracted to is wired into your brain. What I'm saying is that it is defined post birth through that age range (however, it doesn't end at the age of 3).

there is a certain optical illusion you can show young kids and they will not see any both images, they will only see the safe for work one, however if you show adults or sexually maturing people the same picture, they pick out the naked women right off the bat

Yes, I also agree with this. However, "sexually maturing" is a bit misleading. You could state that we are always sexually maturing.
If you read studies on children who have been abused, a key indicator is a pre-puberty knowledge of the sexual organs and sexual activity as a whole. More nurture.

they only see that once sexual maturity starts, before that they don't know about sex or are uninterested in it.

I agree again, but I would say that this is due to a child being nurtured in an environment where the child is not approached or interacted with sexually. Again, studies back this up (also, I acknowledge that I keep saying "studies back this up". Check wikipedia for a brief summary or PM me for a link, as it's nasty stuff).

oh and there's more than one little boy who had an older sister, who dressed him up or treated him "girly" when he was younger and they're rather straight

Yeah, I know a guy who dressed up by his own will as a girl when younger. He's straight as well. The point is, being interfered with doesn't mean you become gay, it just means power and sexuality becomes different. One of those differences is the possibility of homosexuality.

you'd be surprised to know that MOST ppl have had a sexual/power/social altercation with some significance in their lives. i mean there's a whole freaking subculture revolving around this, it's called BDSM look it up some time

the thing is you can try and spread homophobic and frankly ignorant things about homosexuals but every single thing you list can easily be applied to straights as well

I think you're missing my point and falling into the "homophobic" trap - just like I said. I'm not being homophobic or anti-gay in any way. I'm merely stating it's lazy to say it's black and white pre-birth determined.
Similarly, the very fact that it is indeterminate and wavering is testament to it being nurture, not nature.
I.e. don't get rude and patronising with me, and don't fall back on "gay basher", when I'm clearly not.

 

[maximilian]

Except it's not all "obvious." Calling homosexuals an anomaly or weaker type ignores a lot of genetic understanding.
1) We have multiple genes that control any number of things. A simple example: Skin color is controlled by at least 7 different genes. That's just the ones we know about. It's absolutely possible that sexual orientation is controlled by 2, or 15, or 20.
2) Everything, or at least damn near everything about us that relates to our biology it influenced one way or another by our genes. Your functioning limbic system that keeps you from taking on too many skinheads at once has a genetic component. As my dad (PhD in biochemistry, brilliant physician, etc. etc.) used to tell me: even racism has a genetic component. Doesn't make racism a good idea once you get to the choice stage, but we can deal with it better if we understand it better. Given this reality, how the heck does one make the argument that orientation, something so closely related to our biology, has little or no genetic component? I mean really.

Whoa, sorry, I should explain a bit more. My argument was essentially that sexual orientation is derived at some state of post-birth consciousness. The majority of comments thus far (before my original post) and the results of the poll were nature purely. So I should amend myself and state that I'm not saying that genes don't play a part, they just aren't your one way ticket. That was my error in communication. Similarly, I'm not saying that they're "weak" or an anomaly. I'm saying that according to Darwinist theory, that is what a homosexual would be seen as (in light of the theory. Of course, there are nearly 160 theories, so it's a hyperbolic point)

3) There are some excellent biological reasons for having the species be attracted to either/same gender relating to socialization, family building, this list goes on but my family is needing my attention. Quick example: Members of the family that don't procreate have more energy to spend helping the members that do, therefore ensuring better odds for next generation, something vitally important in a species that doesn't breed like rabbits or spiders.

Can you link me some peer review articles on this? While I'd be happy to rethink my stance on the level of prebirth determination (ie give more than 5% to it), my psychological knowledge still points very highly to a predominance of nurture.

4) Offering opinions is great. Saying no one else could have an answer is good for some things. Doing one's homework before calling one's own opinion "obvious" would be helpful especially in an arena where we have LOTS of information. Just because we haven't isolated the gene for orientation doesn't mean we don't have PLENTY of indicators that it exists.

I have done my homework. I work with my homework. I'm aware there are indicators, but what I'm saying is that nurture plays a far larger part than "its all nature cos theres a gene".
The point that is "obvious" is the psychological one, not that I am 100% right. I was attempting to say "the obvious argument against nature is..."

Surely it's bad science to instantly state "its a gene its nature" when this is blatantly misinformation?

Again, I'm not providing the answer, I'm providing another obvious port of call in the debate.

 

[Alex_P]

You're making a mistake by assuming that the sharp "gay or straight" divide that Western culture has created has a definite basis in biology.

Ah you misunderstand me. That is my exact point. Surely it is chronologically logical for this blurring to be a result of nurture, when something such as genetics or "biology" (whatever that means) is so definite.

...? Definite?

Biology doesn't even enforce the "there are two sexes" thing very effectively.

-- Alex

 

[maximilian]

Something should be said here:
I can take a person and once I've gotten to know them well enough, I can often pinpoint, with frightening accuracy, any number of things about them and say "this is genetic", "that's upbringing", "you chose that". I've tested myself on it. Granted, this is a bit of an oversimplification since almost everything about us includes all three BUT when I can take my stepson to a doctor and figure out exactly what goes where (so to speak) and THEN get confirmation from his biological father I'm not doing so bad.

So who cares I'm a freakin' Houdini of people histories? Only this: If you REALLY take the time to understand the patterns of nature, nurture, and choice you can pick them out really well. Everything is patterns. You don't need a degree in genetics to understand the underlying pattern. You just need to understand patterns, and then learn enough about genetics, psychology, and choice to get the pattern of humans.

And just to say it again: If you think it's mostly or all nurture, you do not understand how the human is put together.

A sort of holmesian logical progression of analysis is certainly achievable. I like the way you present your arguments.

Looking at your last statement, I believe it is important to make relative where the majority of the modification occurs if it is tabula rasa ala humanity. I think it's difficult to attempt to place value on human composition regarding the whole of genetic makeup and then chronological post birth existence. It is my belief that as you cannot alter your genetics, we must look at the shapings we can alter, deal with or understand. This is why I placed such emphasis on nurture. Saying nature cultivates a societal (not scientific) laziness. Nurture puts some impetus on us as a social body - to both care for/understand the individual and to learn how the individual is shaped - whatever genetics may deal us.

 

[maximilian]

...? Definite?

Biology doesn't even enforce the "there are two sexes" thing very effectively.

-- Alex

In humans or animals? In any case, we've managed to locate this definition. We haven't for sexuality.

 

[Alex_P]

In humans or animals? In any case, we've managed to locate this definition. We haven't for sexuality.

I think you're kinda missing the point. You've said "it is chronologically logical for this blurring to be a result of nurture" -- but there is no blurring, only a sharpening. We take a diverse scale and squish it down into "gay or straight".

-- Alex

 

[Iskenator67]

I think a lot of it has to do with the people around you. Children learn and act according to the people in there lives. So if there is a lot of homosexuality in there life, they may learn based on that.

Then why weren't there any gay people 20 hunderd years ago, when being with the same sex was unthinkable?

My theory is 2000 years ago we (like dogs) were driven on instinct. Our instinct told us to reproduce, and this lead us to be attracted to females. Centuries later, we started evolving and became more intelligent. Witch therefor caused us to rely less and less on our instincts. Witch opened our minds to new and different things.

Keep in mind both of these are theories. I have no evidence to support them. They are just my thoughts. Consider this before flaming my inbox you twats.

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snipped for avoiding wall-o-text

A few things:

1) Your argument seems to shift a bit from post to post. Not saying it did, just seems to.

2) I said in my first post here mostly nature, some nurture, and some personal choice. No precise percentages so mostly could be 51-99% I'm certain it's somewhere in that range.

3) By saying mostly nature I'm not shifting it to an area I can't deal with. In fact, I'm looking for greater understanding. We can't alter our genetic makeup but we can certainly understand its influence on us and use that understanding to make better choices about ourselves. For example: Reform camps that attempt to turn homosexuals into heteros are inherently retarded. They're using one set of standards while completely ignoring another. Never mind the validity of particular standards I've just touched on.

4) I'm guessing you're a psych major. You seem to be applying the standards of your field in a motivated manner to answer the question. Motivated answers without rigor from other fields are hazardous at best. One of the reasons I love being a generalist - I get to use info from as many fields as possible to find what I'm looking for without by own biases getting in the way as much.

 

[mkg]

ummm you do realize that humans are not affected by pheromones right? yes we still have them, however they actually aren't used in sexual attraction anymore. we out grew them a long time ago

Umm you realize your body still reacts to them at the chemical level, right? They're not like pants you can just "grow" out of.

 

[thomasronan]

As science expands it pushes back the previously unknown. It is happening to religion now and has happened previously in history (Atlas holding up the sky). As our understanding of genetics increases it will become apparent that sexual orrientation is as much about choice as your height is (excluding platform shoes ofcourse.)

It can be argued that the world around us can have a small affect, I would agree as it makes it more acceptable to be gay/straight/both. For example, if the world became accepting to homosexuals overnight we would see a lot more emerge. Not because new ones are being made (sorry didn't want to make out homosexuals are made like TV's or anything) but just because they would feel comfortable to exist the way nature intended them to be.

Hopefully, one day we will all realise this and past preconceptions (like those of naturalists being called witches for example) will be banshed to history where they can hang out with Atlas.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Homosexuals are born not raised.
The only time nature isn't the case is if it becomes trendy: there were a lot of dbags in my college who weren't gay but tried to be because it was cool; I live in NYC.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I think a lot of it has to do with the people around you. Children learn and act according to the people in there lives. So if there is a lot of homosexuality in there life, they may learn based on that.

My theory is 2000 years ago we (like dogs) were driven on instinct. Our instinct told us to reproduce, and this lead us to be attracted to females. Centuries later, we started evolving and became more intelligent. Witch therefor caused us to rely less and less on our instincts. Witch opened our minds to new and different things.

Keep in mind both of these are theories. I have no evidence to support them. They are just my thoughts. Consider this before flaming my inbox you twats.

Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
Also: A guess or speculation.

Your definition of theory seems to be the weaker version. In fact, your "theories" look a lot like under-informed opinions. Homosexuality was around for a LONG time prior to 2000 years ago. Also, I just noticed something else: What kind of evolutionary time-scale are you working with? We've spent something like a bazillion years (read: over 2000 by two or three or so orders of magnitude but I forget more precisely than that) evolving.

Anyway, if you don't want to get flamed, do some homework on your ideas and present them as well formed theories....you'll have better luck that way.

 

[F_demon]

Nature, and a little Nurture.

I believe people are born straight or gay.
However, cultural acceptance can make it manifest differently.

Most people claiming to be bisexual, do have a tendency towards people of their own sex.
In very restrictive surrounding men can marry women and have children, only to find out after many years that he does prefer to be with a man. And vice versa.

 

[Flunk]

As has been shown over and over in various scientific studies, being gay is not a choice and is 100% nature. Sorry, anyone who voted otherwise is wrong.

Pretending not to be gay might be a cultural thing but that doesn't change the fact that you either are straight or gay by nature.

 

[kawligia]

VERY few things are solely one or the other.