Research about sexual orientation (and its expression)

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
1

Sexual orientations are completely biological or partly influenced by environments?

This question can be different from a question that being gay/bisexual/straight etc. are completely biological or partly influenced by environments, depending on definitions of gay etc.

While the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and American Psychiatric Association state that sexual orientation is innate, continuous or fixed throughout their lives for some people, but is fluid or changes over time for others,[17][18]

Our results suggest that causal relationships driving the association between sexual orientation and childhood abuse may be bidirectional, may differ by type of abuse, and may differ by sex. Better understanding of this potentially complex causal structure is critical to developing targeted strategies to reduce sexual orientation disparities in exposure to abuse.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541#:~:text=These%20analyses%20suggest%20that%2C%20overall,genetic%20contribution%20to%20sexual%20orientation

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals

they estimate that genetics can explain between 8% and 25% of nonheterosexual behavior. The rest, they say, is explained by environmental influences ,

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4#ref-CR12

Male sexual orientation is moderately heritable (30~40%), but is multifactorial, with evidence of multiple genetic and environmental contributions, via family studies6,7,8,9,10,11, twin studies4,12 ,13,14,15,16, and segregation analyses8,10,11,17.

Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

For attraction, we found no effect of the shared environment in contrast to Bailey et al. [19] who reported an estimate of 41%. Langstrom et al. [21] reported shared environmental effects of same-sex sexual behavior of 17%. Kendler et al. [20] did not separate their analysis by sex so we cannot compare the findings. Finally, our genetic estimates were lower than those reported by Kirk et al. [22] who attempted to model two components of sexual orientation - sexual attraction and sexual experience - and reported estimates for females between 50 and 60%.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Who’s-Gay-Does-It-Matter-Savin-Williams/9a770397ab1e5f2dfed9b6a52bf1367fe5b33ce2

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490400.2020.1774016

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693.full

Our study focused on the genetic basis of same-sex sexual behavior, but several of our results point to the importance of sociocultural context as well. We observed changes in prevalence of reported same-sex sexual behavior across time, raising questions about how genetic and sociocultural influences on sexual behavior might interact.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347212003508

the social environment males experienced modulated their expression of SSB (same sex sexual behavior).

Collected from a thread in the temp forum.

2 Likes
2

Whoa mama, that’s a lot of articles! Probably could’ve gotten your point across with 2 or 3. :wink:

3

some people need more convincing than that.

Anyway, thanks for preserving those links

3 Likes
4

If you think about it, though, the 100% biological argument works either way because we cannot isolate our selves from our biology. The way we remember our lived experience is through our biology, the way we interact with our immediate environment is though our biology, etc. etc. etc. IF there is such a thing as free will and conscious choice, is that not also rooted in our biology? And in that case, are we really free to choose or are we trapped on a predetermined path with only the illusions of will? Lol, just kidding :runaway:

Also, remember that just because it is in a peer reviewed journal paywalled by a respectable publisher, doesn’t mean it isn’t complete trash!: Grievance studies affair - Wikipedia

2 Likes
5

Plenty of these studies point the deciding environment to be the condition of the womb. That is pretty much the same as biological.

4 Likes
6

Sorry havent read any of those articles, yet.

But another perspective is that biology is in fact inseparable from the environment as a whole (even man made environments) and our biology is a direct result of the environment we live in.

So although they are 2 different thigs they are very intimately intertwined and absolutely inseperable causing a kind of impossibility of one (biology) without the other (environment). Thats just based on the definitions.of words, not even the science of.

I think an interesting conversation could form talking about thought/desires/etc and how they can actually cause physical evolution. Perhaps “environment and sexual orientation” will go down that path of thought evolution as well as the micro bio evolution such as hormone variability and such.

End.of the day, biology throughs out variants, and thosethat can survive in their environment carry on :slight_smile:

1 Like
7

Actually all I want to know is why are societies in general against any sexual orientation except straight?

I know if an entire population is gay then that population is doomed but biologically it simply does not happen. Also as far as reproduction goes one can be gay and have sex with a woman and the species is still safe, so I don’t buy the argument that it’s to safeguard the species. Monogamous relationship is not the only way to ensure offspring. And a gay society could still procreate with women.

But why is it that less modern societies view homosexuality as something that is bad enough that they have to be killed?

1 Like
8

Aha! Nature or nurture? Discuss.

9

most of human don’t prefer dissimilar others by nature or nurture?

authority of journals suggests some quality but doesn’t guaranty anything.

1 Like
10

I blame religion. there are some pretty deep seated prejudices in there, and even if you:re not religious, pretty much all major cultures have reflections of the dominant religions of their past. Yes, even godless CCP is based on a fairly religious Taoist Buddhist Confucianist background. Yes, I know that Confucian belief is not a religion, but i:m sure there’s a link there somewhere!

2 Likes
11

Another good resource:

Some interesting facts: There are only two species where exclusive homosexuals exist: humans and goats.

In all other species, there are only bisexuals, and they mate with the same sex only when opposite-sex partners are unavailable.

2 Likes
12

I always thought there was something a bit suspicious about goats. Humans too, for that matter.

2 Likes
13

Well, if a person looks at things biologically speaking, homosexuality shouldnt be anythig but a normal minority in any society. I dont understand why societies today still have these narrowminded taboos either. However, it isnt just the old cultures, lots of new people are equally quaint.

In fact, gay rights dont really deserve attention when we get down to it. They are people like all others, its normal. Drawing attention to it simply just enables the knee jerkers to talk more bullshit.

Perhaps the real question is why does our species think itself so intelligent and yet requires the knee jerk to over compensate to get anything done. This is literally what people picture in their minds when thinking of a primitive species.

We need, like, a societal mirror man.

As @urodacus states, religion is a key concept . It is generally responsible for a lot of our stupidity and atrocities. However, at the same time, it was integral to our evolution. So a above, thought influencing evolution. I am quite at ease with religion being in our history as part of our history. But it continues to amaze how it still stands and fundamental to people tha are otherwise intelligent, successful and all that jazz. Over time it will fade out, but evolution is measured in generations more than by years.

1 Like
14

will it? Isn’t it human’s tendency to want something to depend on? Depend may be not the right word, but rely on or lean on or something like that.

Not exactly on the topic, but related poll

15

I’m not clearly understanding what is sexual orientation yet.

WPA Position Statement on Gender Identity and Same‐Sex Orientation, Attraction and Behaviours - PMC.

The WPA considers sexual orientation to be innate and determined by biological, psychological, developmental and social factors.

same‐sex orientation, attraction and behaviour (formerly referred to as homosexuality).

16

Only 2.2%? I thought it was way higher than that. The figure usually thrown around is 10%, which is clearly BS, but I had it down at around 5%.

Hardly anybody is LGB.

17

If I sample my grade school classmates, it’s about 10%. They are all pretty open about it, so it isn’t difficult to find out later on when we’ve all grown up. If hardly anyone you know is LGB, either your sample size is pretty small, or the social structures around them isn’t very open and friendly.

18

According to the survey in the Guardian it’s 2.2% in the UK. Who I know or don’t has nothing to do with it.

19

I thought it’s higher than that…

20