Understanding genetics is difficult enough, but now comes new information about gene copies that get switched off leading to vulnerabilities and unanticipated pathways in development.
This AP article describes a paper regarding “silenced” genes and raises many questions about how the environment might turn on and off copies of genes. Here is the introduction:
Duke scientists map ‘silenced genes’
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer Fri Nov 30, 6:49 AM ET
WASHINGTON – Remember biology class where you learned that children inherit one copy of a gene from mom and a second from dad? There’s a twist: Some of those genes arrive switched off, so there is no backup if the other copy goes bad, making you more vulnerable to disorders from obesity to cancer. if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d[‘o.OVcULEYrE-‘]=’&U=13brmd2ke%2fN%3do.OVcULEYrE-%2fC%3d629244.11793224.12324303.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5063146’;
Duke University scientists now have identified these “silenced genes,” creating the first map of this unique group of about 200 genes believed to play a profound role in people’s health.
More intriguing, the work marks an important step in studying how our environment — food, stress, pollution — interacts with genes to help determine why some people get sick and others do not.
Ann,
AND, you are welcome 🙂
Ann,
I really appreciate your honesty here – thank you.
Thanks for saying so 🙂
Another thing to realize about the prostate is that in order to stimulate it, sometimes you have to get past feeling some pain – and some people who attempt this, never get past the pain part.
Jayhuck,
I really appreciate your honesty here – thank you.
and what is the biggest sexual organ we have in our bodies? – our brain.
Jayhuck,
I agree with you 100% on this 🙂
Evan,
I mean, by saying that “heterosexuality is no more natural than homosexuality” he can simply make use of the defective nature of these concepts and of our present notion of ‘natural’ (inborn, or supported by nature — instead of deliberate, devised or rehearsed) to put forward a sort of theoretical challenge: until you cannot prove that one is more originary than another, they are both just as originary. He could be just raising the theoretical stake for a social reality’s sake — one he is particularly fond of.
I realize he can do this, or could be doing that – but do you know for certain what he meant by saying that or are you just guessing. Granted, your explanation sounds viable to me, but I’m curious because in the context of the sentence he used it in, he was trying to say that gay people should not see this as a bad thing because…..
Tim,
You did a great job of keeping it clean and a far better job than I of expressing why it proves interesting for discussions revolving around design 🙂
Ann,
Please don’t take this as an insult. But your information is completely incorrect.
What you have heard from several men is not even remotely reflective of the standard sexual practices of gay men. I would very much not like to discuss graphic details, but I think that I am better informed on this subject (I’m sure you’d agree) and I can state with absolute certainty that great pleasure is experienced by both parties.
Some heterosexuals misunderstand and think that only one party is experiencing pleasure and the other is being submissive. This is completely wrong. Entirely wrong.
Some persons find much more satisfaction with one role or the other and some find it to be equally pleasurable. Others only enjoy one or the other and some don’t enjoy that particular sex act at all – bodies are different. Often gay men will self-identify (as “top”, “bottom” or “versatile”) but no one presumes that only their preference is pleasurable and that their partner is not experiencing as much pleasure as they are.
Even within basic missionary style heterosexual copulation has different tempos and techniques because different men experience sensations in different ways depending on degrees of friction and particular sensitivities along various segments of skin.
(man, it’s hard to keep this clean)
And there are more than a few heterosexual men who include anal stimulation (their own) into their sex life with women. For some reason they don’t seem to want to loudly discuss this with their buddies over beers.
Anyway, my point is that males (even heterosexual males) experience sexual pleasure from acts that are generally associated with homosexual behavior. Thus if we use “natural design” (ie. sexual stimulae tied to copulation proves its “naturalness”) as the basis for the appropriateness or naturalness of sex, then man is designed for homosexual intercourse.
Ann,
Let me try and make myself clearer on a point I brought up above. Some men, even gay, will not allow other men inside them because they feel that being the receiver takes away from their masculinity. This isn’t a question of whether they would be able to derive pleasure from stimulation of the prostate, but about how doing so would make them feel about themselves.
I’m sorry, Jayhuck, I did not realise you wanted me to comment on Bem’s remark.
Bem is a very intelligent man and he can use these terms in a precise way against their defective conceptual substance. I mean, by saying that “heterosexuality is no more natural than homosexuality” he can simply make use of the defective nature of these concepts and of our present notion of ‘natural’ (inborn, or supported by nature — instead of deliberate, devised or rehearsed) to put forward a sort of theoretical challenge: until you cannot prove that one is more originary than another, they are both just as originary. He could be just raising the theoretical stake for a social reality’s sake — one he is particularly fond of.
Ann,
Another thing to realize about the prostate is that in order to stimulate it, sometimes you have to get past feeling some pain – and some people who attempt this, never get past the pain part.
I’m sure Warren is shaking his head right now wondering HOW we all managed to get from Duke Labs to the sexual stimulation of the prostate – LOL. It may very well be my fault now that I think about.
Busy day. In Jayhuck’s statement where I questioned the definitions, it was part in sarcasm, but a good part was serious. Jayhuck tossed in the phrase ‘regardless of how orientation…develops’. Back to the dictionary, folks, but ‘regardless’ means ‘regardless’, ‘without regard’…colloquially: ‘no matter how it develops’. Well, what if psychology found out that it was due to an assortment of root causes and some environmental ones thrown in for good measure? Heck, even toss in a genetic predisposition if that makes you feel good.
I know you reject the root causes scenario but it hasn’t been studied enough to be officially debunked so we really can’t say that it will be. If any of these scenarios played out, the definition of ‘normal’ would go a bit fluid. The definition of pathological wouldn’t change but new pathologies would likely be incorporated.
Jayhuck called his statement a fundamental thing to understand. I’m outraged that he could try to call something a fundamental and totally overlook or dismiss that a number of us don’t share his fundamentals. My question would be: Fundamental to whom?
That’s the definition I should have questioned. Here’s the dictionary answer. Fundamental: serving as a foundation or basis. a leading or primary principle, rule, law, or the like, wich serves as the groundwork of a system.
Ann,
If a man’s prostate is a pleasure point when stimulated, why don’t the majority of men want to have this stimulated (by various objects and means) for sexual pleasure? I have even heard several times from homosexual men that they would never let another man “inside” them – that it is only them that will go “inside” another man. Sounds like the friction method is more pleasureable to them than the prostate stimuli.
This all most likely has to do with psychological “hurdles”, NOT physical ones. The fact is that the prostate is an organ of pleasure – for both straight and gay men. Why some men – or even most straight men don’t want to try this, could be do to any number of psychological factors. Many straight men probably wouldn’t even try it because they might think enjoying it would make them gay. Just because many won’t try, are afraid to try doesn’t take away from the organ being used for sexual pleasure. Good grief – how many women have I heard tell me that they don’t like sex period. And the gay men I have heard talk about only wanting to be inside other men have also said that they feel being the receiver makes them more gay. It all comes down to psychology – and what is the biggest sexual organ we have in our bodies? – our brain. I can’t even count the number of times when my head got in the way of my body when it came to sex. I would think this would be common sense at this point.
Thank you, Timothy, I prefer ignorance to misuse. I don’t think a man’s purpose in life is to find the utmost pleasure from all sorts of body explorations and internal ravishments, like prostate massaging & co. Call me ignorant, that’s just me taking the mellow path to well-being.
Jayhuck,
If a man’s prostate is a pleasure point when stimulated, why don’t the majority of men want to have this stimulated (by various objects and means) for sexual pleasure? I have even heard several times from homosexual men that they would never let another man “inside” them – that it is only them that will go “inside” another man. Sounds like the friction method is more pleasureable to them than the prostate stimuli.
Evan,
You never responded to what Bem said regarding his theory: That heterosexuality is no more natural than homosexuality.
Evan,
It seems to me we’re still in a ‘Newtonian period’ of research about these things, although social realities are long since past ‘relativity theory’ stage.
I think all of us on here would probably agree with this.
The idea behind that paragraph is that heterosexuality is actually the natural expression of the reproductive design
I think we’ve safely established that it takes a man and a woman to have a baby – without the help of science anyway 🙂 So I would agree here too.
Sexual difference, not just perceived gender difference, actually fuels attractions
You’ve spoken of this a great deal but I am still unclear by what you mean.
We have people attracted to one sex but acting on another, people acting on both sexes but only attracted to one, people changing both sex and preferred sexual object.
Yes we do. I think an important thing to consider in discussions on this topic, would be distinguishing between behavior and orientation. Of course, then we have a problem with definitions again.
But I’m sure there will always be people breaking new ground and finding new territories for pleasure. All I hope is that they will not claim that in the name of very generous human feelings, and be honest about their motives.
Let me just say that as a gay man, *I* cringe at the thought of having my prostate checked. Having your prostate checked by a medical professional in no way simulates sexual stimulation of that same organ. As for “new territories” – I would hardly call the prostate – or the stimulation of it new territory
Eddy
I was being mildly sarcastic. Why didn’t you make your statement about not redefining words to Jayhuck when he redefined “Design”?
Because “design” actually does have different usages. To be fair, so does “normal”. But “pathological” does not.
Evan,
Your own ignorace about male anatomy does not suggest that others are breaking new ground sexually.
Jayhuck,
I read Bem’s theory many times, but I couldn’t infer from your post whether you are familiar with it firsthand or not. That’s why I provided a link, no sarcasm included, it’s a complex theory.
But I’m not sure if you considered my reply to Timothy’s argument regarding design, 70993. I get that sometimes, my replies seem to be posted, but others cannot see them (probably due to timezones and blog software); I have to make sure you saw that.
The idea behind that paragraph is that heterosexuality is actually the natural expression of the reproductive design, i.e. its counterpart in attractions to its biological support. Sexual difference, not just perceived gender difference, actually fuels attractions. Science has provided and I expect it will provide more on this matching in instincts and physical parts in what we now call heterosexuality. But much of the misunderstang behing this sort of debate, i.e. homosexuality versus heterosexuality, stems from how they were classified based on a certain context of knowledge. We have people attracted to one sex but acting on another, people acting on both sexes but only attracted to one, people changing both sex and preferred sexual object. It seems to me we’re still in a ‘Newtonian period’ of research about these things, although social realities are long since past ‘relativity theory’ stage.
For all those who read and believe in the Bible, it could be a good starting point if we needed an instruction manuel for how to use and take care of our bodies. It refers to purpose and design – both for reproduction and pleasure.
Eddy,
I’ve been blogging here for approximately the same amount of time that Jayhuck has and am frequently exhausted beating his dead horse.
Let me just say that the feeling is mutual.
Evan,
When I was talking about what is true I was only referring to the biological design
My apologies – I missed this on my first go at your post. Again, it depends on what we mean by design – are we talking about the design of reproduction or the design of having successful and pleasurable sex. If we are only talking about reproduction, then you are correct – but our bodies were designed solely for reproduction
Please explain this in more detail if you don’t mind – I’m still not sure I understand you: So I’m only saying that I don’t agree that there is such a thing as a natural homosexual design, and I consider that heterosexuality and homosexuality are of a different nature (there are more matching features provided for relationships, partnership and mating based on sexual difference)
I’ll have to refer you again to Timothy’s point on design.
Evan,
I have looked at Daryl Bem’s theory – I presented you with two quotes of his – one of which I will re-produce because you may want to become more familiar with his theory as well:
From Darryl Bem: “Moreover, Bem challenges the view that people will be more tolerant of homosexuality if they believe that it is determined by biology. Indeed, the gay community should be happy with EBE theory, he said, “because it views heterosexuality as no more biologically natural than homosexuality.”
As for Darryl Bem’s “tenets”, I don’t believe I ever really said anything about them.
As for: The fact that they cannot have children with another man must say pretty much about the existence of a design, wouldn’t you think?
All this says to me Evan is that their relationships cannot, by themselves, bear children. But as you said so well above, that doesn’t mean they cannot have meaningful relationships.
As for your design argument, you might want to revisit Timothy’s good point about design.
As for culling through the archives of this blog from the last 2 years to provide you references – I simply don’t have the time. And as Eddy said, my exhaustion isn’t felt by everyone – I’m just going to pick and choose my battles more carefully 🙂
I’m sure that is just as provided for by natural design as the brain areas involved in cocaine craving.
It’s a bit odd though, that you would argue for homosexuality based on greater capacity to derive pleasure from any identified physical part. Most people cringe the thought of checking their prostate. But I’m sure there will always be people breaking new ground and finding new territories for pleasure. All I hope is that they will not claim that in the name of very generous human feelings, and be honest about their motives.
Jayhuck,
To answer your first reply — heterosexual couples who are infertile have a health problem, not a ‘design’ problem. Of course they can have a meaningful relationship without having children or without being married, but that does not change their anatomy, they still are similar in most respects to all people designed to be able to have children, only that they unfortunately have a dysfunction. Gay men are not, in principle, unable to have children, but they have a type of sexual preference that makes them less likely to pursue that. The fact that they cannot have children with another man must say pretty much about the existence of a design, wouldn’t you think?
When I was talking about what is true I was only referring to the biological design part, nothing implied for gay people’s choices to live meaningful relationships to their liking. So I’m only saying that I don’t agree that there is such a thing as a natural homosexual design, and I consider that heterosexuality and homosexuality are of a different nature (there are more matching features provided for relationships, partnership and mating based on sexual difference), just as I said before. Usually people pick up on that and think that I must assume that if they are not of the same nature I must think that one is of a lesser nature in social terms too. But I don’t, I said it before, I think rights should not be based on reasearch, I think it should not be compulsory for science to only present findings that comfort the present order of rights, but I agree that simple minds need this sort of arguments to process acceptance.
About Daryl Bem’s EBE theory, you could have a look at it before making up your mind about its tenets. It’s not just about ‘opposites attract’, since we don’t know whether two attracted individuals are really opposites or just perceive themselves to be. Just as I said before, in the case of heterosexuality sexual difference plays an essential role in this, whereas in the case of homosexuality it must be perceived gender difference that accounts for this type of attraction, since there is neither sexual difference nor perception of such (such as it is in the case of transgendered people).
I’m not sure how you went through all these arguments before, but if this is the case, you can provide references to those topics and I can see whether this issue was taken up before or whether some arguments were left out.
Thank you for your replies and for your involvement in this debate.
On the design issue —
I’m not going to turn this discussion into a philosophical debate over what is design and what not; actually I know at least one philosopher who would label my argument as ‘abuse of faculty’ but I want to be true to what I believe to be true. When I used the word ‘design’ here I meant anything but something complicated, actually I wanted to pinpoint a commonsensical idea about this: there is a reason, a predetermined utility in linking sexual pleasure to reproductive function in humans. If there was none, the capacity to become aroused and reach physical pleasure was not conditioned in men to discharging the reproductive substance (dysfunctions are not discussed here). Of course, in what context and for what purpose is this accomplished can be subject to a multitude of possible choices, but physical improvisation and multitude of practices do not vindicate lack of any purposive connection between reproduction and sexual function. It’s not just some possibility among many others there, it’s the original device with its staple utility. If that was not the case, we would have had reproductive function separated from arousal, but it’s linked.
Timothy–
I was being mildly sarcastic. Why didn’t you make your statement about not redefining words to Jayhuck when he redefined “Design”?
Tim,
Regarding Design –
One of the most sexually pleasurable parts of a man’s body is not located externally. And to stimulate this part generally involves sexual activities that are best associated with same-sex behavior.
One might ask for what purpose, be it divine design or evolutionary directive, this organ is so capable of such heights of sexual pleasure?
You bring up an excellent point!
Timothy,
I think what Eddy is trying to do is to make an issue of those times when I have real problems with definitions of words. There are words we all use everyday that we assign our own meanings to, and they can become stumbling blocks when we’re trying to have conversations with people. Ex-Gay is a great example – it may have a very simple meaning, but so many people tend to define it in different ways.
However, when Eddy brought up the words normal and pathological, I wasn’t using my own personal definitions but those of the governing body that sets standards for such things. He is free to have his own definitions, as is the rest of the ex-gay community.
Eddy,
Jayhuck states: “The fundamental thing to understand, regardless of how orientation – gay or straight develops – is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality is normal and is not pathological in nature.” I guess that depends on how you define ‘normal’ and how you define ‘pathological’. It would also depend on the nature of the homosexuality or heterosexuality; I’m sure there are examples of both that are at least borderline pathological. Oh, it also depends on how you interpret ‘regardless of how orientation develops’.
I’m just going by what the APA says Eddy! The same body that sets the standards for these kinds of things.
Concerned,
I disagree that biologists and genetisits lean more towards nature. I believe that many in these fields have come to realize that there are other factors that could very easily be at work in this development.
I never said that they don’t realize there are other factors at play – and you are right, perhaps now they are even more balanced – but personally, I think it is a hazard of the job, that you lean a little more in the direction of your field 🙂
Timothy,
If by secular you mean pro-gay then I would also question the credibility of these sources.
No Timothy, you are mistaking. More and more we are discovering how the brain works and how genes influence the development of the brain. We are also discovering how genes are turned on and off due to other external factors, such as stress and environmental cues. You can continue to believe what you want but that does not change the way the brain develops.
Eddy,
I guess that depends on how you define ‘normal’ and how you define ‘pathological’.
If you think homosexuality is abnormal, per se, say so and prove it. If you think it is pathological, per se, then say so and prove it. But don’t come up with your own private definitions of the words.
Please, let’s not get back into redefining words. Please.
This is, to my way of thinking, one of the least commendable traits of certain segments of the ex-gay and anti-gay community. Eddy, you hate it when I point this out. So let’s just not start all of that up again.
OK?
Eddy,
I have to agree with Jayhuck in regards to his discussions about beating dead horses. Evan’s most recent comments about “defending your condition” simply confirmed my impression about Evan’s purpose here.
Concerned,
I think you are mistaken. Perhaps a closer reading of those that you think are recognizing “other factors” will demonstrate that the other factors are also biological in nature. When discussing “environment”, quite often they are meaning the womb and its impact (hormones, nutrients, etc.) instead of simply genes, but nonetheless they are speaking of “nature” not “nurture”.
I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding – based on a fairly comprehensive observation of the recent literature on the matter – that nearly all secular scientists are in agreement that sexual orientation is not primarily the result of family dynamics or other phychological situations (ie “nurture”). It is my understanding that nearly all secular scientists believe that genetic, hormonal, or other pre-natal influences greatly influence the ultimate sexual orientation for most, if not all, gay men and women.
If you have evidence that biologist and geneticists are leaning towards “nurture” as the primary “cause” of homosexuality, please provide it (though for credibility’s sake you may wish to avoid using NARTH as your reference).
Evan–
Please take the comments of post 70563 with a grain of salt. Jayhuck does not speak for all of us. I’ve been blogging here for approximately the same amount of time that Jayhuck has and am frequently exhausted beating his dead horse.
Jayhuck states: “The fundamental thing to understand, regardless of how orientation – gay or straight develops – is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality is normal and is not pathological in nature.” I guess that depends on how you define ‘normal’ and how you define ‘pathological’. It would also depend on the nature of the homosexuality or heterosexuality; I’m sure there are examples of both that are at least borderline pathological. Oh, it also depends on how you interpret ‘regardless of how orientation develops’.
I guess what I’m saying is that this might be fundamental to Jayhuck’s understanding but his understanding is not fundamental to me. So, regardless of how many times we’ve been ‘around the mountain’, I guess we’re destined for a few more trips.
Jayhuck,
I disagree that biologists and genetisits lean more towards nature. I believe that many in these fields have come to realize that there are other factors that could very easily be at work in this development. I have seen quite a substantial change in the ideas of some and am encouraged. It saddens me to see some that are still stuck on the purely biological explanation as it has been promoted for so many years. It will change again as it has in the past.
Thank you Jayhuck for your perspective – I do understand where you are coming from and respect it and realize it is just different from mine.
Regarding design:
If by design, we mean a Creator, then this whole argument is nothing other than a religious debate and, on the whole, pointless. We all have our own articles of faith, and we might as well discuss predestination or the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
If, however, by design we mean something a little more vague and in the realm of how the pieces fit together and “nature’s intent”, I do have an observation.
One of the most sexually pleasurable parts of a man’s body is not located externally. And to stimulate this part generally involves sexual activities that are best associated with same-sex behavior.
One might ask for what purpose, be it divine design or evolutionary directive, this organ is so capable of such heights of sexual pleasure?
Ann,
Glad to help. Now it’s time for lesson number two
If you want to make something bold, you do the same thing as italics, except you use “b” instead of “i”
Evan,
One more thing to mention about Darryl Ben – this is pulled from the same Cornell article that I pulled the other quote:
“Moreover, Bem challenges the view that people will be more tolerant of homosexuality if they believe that it is determined by biology. Indeed, the gay community should be happy with EBE theory, he said, “because it views heterosexuality as no more biologically natural than homosexuality.”
Let’s also not forget that Bem is a Sociologist – and while I respect the profession and the studies, sociologists, as a group, always seem to lean more towards nurture and less to nature, whereas a biologist or geneticist may lean more towards the latter.
Evan,
Separating sexuality from reproduction has led us into misunderstanding the biological design and living by mere artifice. It is possible, it is pleasant, but it is not true. Pleasure is just nature’s enticement into reproduction
That is merely your opinion – what is TRUE for one person isn’t true for another. This also doesn’t address all the heterosexual couples who are infertile – or incapable of having kids – is their relationship or sexual experience less TRUE because they can’t reproduce?
You and simply disagree about what the TRUTH, in this situation, is.
I AM somewhat familiar with Daryl Bem’s THEORY – a quote I ripped from an article talking about his research that I particularly like is “One universal principle – opposites attract accounts for homosexuality as well as heterosexuality, according to a Cornell psychologist who proposes a sweeping new theory of how sexual orientation develops.” I don’t take issue with his research but I’m not sure it tells us anything NEW – it also doesn’t say whether most gay people began as sex-atypical children, just that most sex atypical children grew up gay – but again, not all. I think we’ve known this for some time now.
I’m sorry Evan – sometimes I feel as if I’m beating a dead horse when talking to you. You’ve made it perfectly clear where you stand, but all the arguments and topics you raise are arguments we’ve been through so many times on here before. I’m not suggesting it isn’t worthwhile to revisit them, but, personally, I’m just a little exhausted with them at this point.
The fundamental thing to understand, regardless of how orientation – gay or straight develops – is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality is normal and is not pathological in nature. I’m interested in how each one of them develops from a scientific point of view, but we still don’t know anything for certain.
I appreciate your opinions though.
Ann,
You are right, but I think it also comes down to how we define and understand the word DESIGN – I do understand where you and Eddy were coming from though – I did from the beginning – I was just trying, albeit miserably, to offer a different perspective 🙂
I’m also sure it will come as no surprise at this point that you and I probably agree on some points and disagree on others as to what men’s and women’s bodies were designed FOR. I am truly sorry I took us down this path though – I feel that I wasted everyone’s time – LOL 🙂
“Designed for” is a word coupling that implies purpose. That’s what the word ‘for’ is for! A pair of jeans that is ‘designed for comfort’ does other things…provides protection from the sun or from the cold…provides coverage of the legs, butt and crotch…is suitable for rough or messy tasks…is a popular casual look. But, they are designed for comfort. Special consideration was given in the design process to ensure ‘comfort’.
“Designed to” also implies purpose. If we say “this car is designed to grip the road”, we are saying that extra focus was given to ensure stability on the road. The car has many purposes and uses but special attention was given to traction, steering, balance, etc. I believe that most of us use these words in this manner.
I guess my basic argument is that if they CAN do it, they were definitely designed to do it
Jayhuck,
People would not be able to accomodate sexual acts if their body were not capable of it – you are right about that. Design is a whole different thing –
Well, if many gay men are attracted to personality differences, how come they are not attracted to female personalities? You make it seem like it just happens to be the same sex in gay attractions. I hope you don’t disagree with existing research that shows childhood sex atypicality to be the best predictor of future sexual orientation in gay men and women. According to Daryl Bem’s Exotic Becomes Erotic theory gay males are attracted to sex-typical males, exactly the type of ‘personalities’ they felt most different from during their sex-atypical childhood. Is this attraction generated by perceived gender difference or just attraction to ‘personality’, as you put it?
In “Butch, Femme, or Straight Acting? Partner Preferences of Gay Men and Lesbians” (1997) Bailey et al. reported they replicated previous studies which indicated gay men’s preferences for masculine partners and their bias against feminine partners. If gay males had on average a sex-atypical childhood and are attracted to what they did not perceive themselves to be during childhood (family reports concurred in this respect), i.e. sex-typical, we can conclude they are attracted to perceived gender difference, just as I said. I hope we agree that gender is more lax, while sex is not.
Old school arguments would reply that this is not an argument, unless pedophilia or any other type of paraphilia are just as designed for sex since they would able to. So what is the proper criterion to use in order to understand what is design and not? I would say it must be that procreative capacity, but we, modern people, have split sexuality from reproduction as wide apart that we no longer make much distinction between nature and artifice. Everything goes inasmuch as it is consensual and is not classified by APA as a disorder, right? Poor people who happen to procreate as a result of having sex, it must be a burden for them to have just another type of sexuality (and boring too, some other pomosexuals might say) and go through all the hardship of reproduction…
PS. You seem to believe that if there is any design at all, it must be differentiated for pleasure and reproduction. If there is no biologically determined link between sexuality and reproduction, what biological use may be understood to have male sperm or female ova? It must be accidental that they have been linked to sex organs and their function. I wonder how far are we willing to go and stretch common sense just to cater to our (human) confusion.
Separating sexuality from reproduction has led us into misunderstanding the biological design and living by mere artifice. It is possible, it is pleasant, but it is not true. Pleasure is just nature’s enticement into reproduction, but that’s just my 21st century ‘opinion’. I hope God signed the genome or we are smart enough to see it, or else we’ll be playing design and say it’s just nature. To quote a good friend of mine from Italy, humans don’t know what is good, they had to be told.
Eddy,
I guess my basic argument is that if they CAN do it, they were definitely designed to do it – does that make sense? I think we’re making this harder then it needs to be. I can understand how people might interpret the words “designed for” to mean some kind of supernatural design for a specific, pre-ordained purpose – but that is not what I was talking about.
NOW, as to whether people SHOULD do something – well that depends on who you are, where you live, what you believe, etc.
I really am sorry that I even took us down this road though – I don’t think this is worth debating really. Some people believe that romantic relationships should ONLY be heterosexual, some believe they should be heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. I”ll just leave it there.
Eddy,
Being designed to do something, and having that something be right or good, as I said before, are two different things.
They are designed for this or they wouldn’t be able to – and its as simple as that.
As Mr. Spock would say: “Highly Illogical”.
Humans are able to do many things that they are not designed for. The taking of another human life is the most notable. The ability to do something does not suggest that we are designed for it.
Jayhuck,
Have you noticed that I now know how to italicize? Thanks to Timothy showing me how.
Ann,
The male and female body were designed for procreation – I agree with that, but its not any more complicated than that either. When you say these bodies were designed to compliment each other, I agree, as were men’s bodies for other men’s bodies or women’s bodies for other women’s bodies.
When I said that men’s bodies were designed for each other, I never said that some people don’t consider this to be a good thing – just that they were designed to have sex with each other. Being designed for something and feeling that that something is appropriate are two different things.
They are designed for this or they wouldn’t be able to – and its as simple as that.
Jayhuck,
We can have sex with anyone or anything we want to and many do without limitation – I still think the male and female body was designed to complement each other and has been doing just that since the beginning of time.
Timothy,
If you believe FOTF’s Melissa Fryrear, every single solitary gay man and woman was molested. Well, except me, of course.
LOL 🙂
Evan,
As for the anorexia part, my question was concerned with examining the criteria that makes one a disease and the other not, since they both are now assumed to be similarly caused — prenatal exposure to hormones.
Where do you get your information????? There is no definitive proof anywhere that homosexuality is caused by prenatal exposure to hormones. Just to make sure you understand this – We don’t know what causes homosexuality OR heterosexuality. You are free to have your own opinion, but please don’t state it as something that is assumed to be true.
Evan,
I’ve never seen a scientific study that puts homosexuality and heterosexuality on a par from a biodeterministic point of view. It’s highly unlikely that will ever be the case, because heterosexuality is about attraction motivated and supported by sexual difference (perception and sexual design are matching), whereas homosexuality is fueled by attraction to perceived gender difference. Do you think anyone is attracted to sameness?
Do you really think that homosexuals or only attracted to clones of themselves???? Many gay men are also attracted to the personality differences in others, the only thing that is the same is the gender.
As for your “scientific studies”, I’ve personally never seen a SINGLE ONE that tried to compare and contrast homosexuality and heterosexuality – are there differences, sure – but there are also very many similarities. Both often desire the same things: love, companionship, security, children…..the list of similarities could go on.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “perception and sexual design are matching”, but I have an idea. If you’re going to use the old-school argument that gay men aren’t designed to have sex with each other, you would be wrong. They are designed for this or they wouldn’t be able to – and its as simple as that. They aren’t designed to procreate, but that’s about it.
Jayhuck,
If you believe FOTF’s Melissa Fryrear, every single solitary gay man and woman was molested. Well, except me, of course.
I’ve never seen a scientific study that puts homosexuality and heterosexuality on a par from a biodeterministic point of view. It’s highly unlikely that will ever be the case, because heterosexuality is about attraction motivated and supported by sexual difference (perception and sexual design are matching), whereas homosexuality is fueled by attraction to perceived gender difference. Do you think anyone is attracted to sameness?
As for the anorexia part, my question was concerned with examining the criteria that makes one a disease and the other not, since they both are now assumed to be similarly caused — prenatal exposure to hormones. There is no all-inclusive gay gene hypothesis, they all focus on carefully chosen subsets, which I guess leaves all other cases to environmental explanations.
Evan,
Anorexia Nervosa is a disease – homosexuality is not.
Evan,
my “how” deals with the way they now assume anorexia is caused by pre-natal hormone exposure.
Well at least now I know its your own opinion and not some objective scientific study that says this.
I’ve never suggested that we know how homosexuality develops. I’ve only suggested that most scientists agree that it, like heterosexuality is probably a combination of genes and the environment – that’s all. I’ve said this many times over.
The only people who really believe they understand homosexuality are people from NARTH or Exodus who give us a huge laundry list of things that they believe cause homosexuality. To me it appears they just listed every possible cause under the sun in the hopes that at least one or a few might be correct.
Drowssap,
The irony! <<
Jayhuck,
It’s very simple — my “how” deals with the way they now assume anorexia is caused by pre-natal hormone exposure. There’s no assumption on my part that someone knows how homosexuality develops.
I specifically used “presumed” to show that the neurohormonal development hypothesis is scientists’ basic assumption when studying homosexuality. Not even Nicolosi denies any relevance in this respect, as far as I know. What reparative theory denies is that this is sufficient and decisive in settling homosexuality, as far as I can see. It may be right in some cases, just as Hamer’s genetic claim only covers a carefully chosen segment. They may be both shots in the dark, only that one is empirically defended (not proven, otherwise Bailey would be wasting his time and other people’s money right now…).
Funny you acknowledge we don’t know “HOW homosexuality developed”, because it’s hard to see that in your messages.
PS. Is it true that anorexia is dealt with in therapy? If the causal chain is similar to homosexuality (ie, it has the same level of unchangeability), what methodological and ethical questions should we ask ourselves, what differentiates between dealing with one in therapy and discouraging the same with the other (when it’s a cause of major distress in someone)? Is it the fact that invariably anorexia affects one’s physical health, while same-sex attractions and behaviour do not? I want your point of view.
Evan,
Interesting how they can parallel the way homosexuality is now presumed to develop
I wasn’t aware that we knew HOW homosexuality developed. Well, unless you’re a member of NARTH that is 🙂
Drowssap –
You can bet that “gay” sheep are being thoroughly examined in labs around the world.
That statement just made my evening – LOL 🙂
Evan
I think we’re tightening the screw around this.
I agree with you. I’m always on alert for word of a major breakthrough. I expect we’ll get one in the next few years. But who knows, it could happen as early as tomorrow. You can bet that “gay” sheep are being thoroughly examined in labs around the world.
I think I’ll go for the Gerber strained peas as well 😉
Babies who go on to develop anorexia may be programmed in the womb by their mother’s hormones, evidence suggests.
This just sounds like a Jerry Springer episode 🙂
Interesting news, Drowssap. It shows how many things can go wrong at that stage, just because a bacteria is messing with a cell’s normal functioning and production of hormones. I wonder how much of this explanatory model can be translated to other conditions. The article does not specify whether this is an exclusive type of occurence — you either have it or not, or it’s an inclusive one — it’s a matter of degrees.
In this respect, the findings related to anorexia seem to fit the latter case. Interesting how they can parallel the way homosexuality is now presumed to develop, from the pre-natal hormone exposure to the environmental influences.
I think we’re tightening the screw around this.
Gary
IMHO I don’t believe it’s the hormone levels. Hormone irregularities are found in loads of disorders. However I do believe that hormone irregularities are an important biological marker that tell us that something is going on.
Example:
Rogue bacteria involved in both heart disease and infertility
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071120095413.htm
Relevant point:
In this case an infection alters hormone production. The hormones aren’t causing the problem, the infection is. The hormone irregularity is a biological marker, not the cause.
That is new to me but not surprising. Maybe that is why healing is so difficult for anorexics. It has been correlated with deep anger as well and that makes counseling difficult.
Timothy Kincaid
Here is one for ya Tim
Babies who go on to develop anorexia may be programmed in the womb by their mother’s hormones, evidence suggests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/7124697.stm
Timothy Kincaid
I’m still voting for Gerber strained peas
Not crazy enough by a longshot. 😎
Possibility the cause of SSA is just as crazy is this theory: High
I’m still voting for Gerber strained peas
Drowssap said in post 69452:
Possibility the cause of SSA is just as crazy is this theory: High
Perhaps you didn’t intended to, but this statement implies there is a single cause for a person’s sexual orientation.
Current research indicates there are many factors involved in the formation of a person’s orientation. However, I think just because 2 people have the same orientation, that doesn’t necessarily mean the same combination of factors was involved in both cases.
Again, read and watch the videos on the NOVA site. Go to NOVA, The Ghost in the Genes and see waht you think. It is much deeper than the article from Duke. I have seen many people healed from trauma in the womb that caused adult issues like anxiety, depression and sexual dysfunctions.
Read the materials by Dr. Thomas Verny on this topic.
Drowssap,
I do not know either but thought it was something to consider. I think the appearance part is locked in at conception – what occurs post conception, as in the womb environment might/could/possibly be a factor to consider. The environment within both sacks could be different in ways we might not uderstand yet – one might have a minute infection via embryonic fluid, one might not be disposing of waste properly, etc. – I am just thinking of hypothetical examples. Regarding the placentia – some multiple births have a placentia for each baby which could provide minutely different nutrients or lack of nutrients or might introduce a virus/infection/germs to one and not the other. Probably the best way to differentiate would be babies within one sack with one placentia versus babies within their own sack and having their own placentia. I really don’t have ANY idea but it lends itself to different factors when talking about environmental exposure post conception in the womb regarding idential twins.
Wild speculation ahead
Gene X offers significant immune system advantages.
Flu virus Y gets its butt kicked by adults with Gene X.
Flu virus Y evolves and learns how to zap developing babies with Gene X. (Predators routinely attack the young of tough species because they make easier targets)
Flu virus Y silences a couple of key genes responsible sexual orientation, thereby limiting the spread of Gene X.
Possibility this is true: Low
Possibility the cause of SSA is just as crazy is this theory: High
Ann
I’m not sure how common that is but I’ve read your mentions of that and I’ve heard about it before. Interesting. It’s hard for me to imagine that babies just milimeters apart for 9 months receive a significantly different level of herbs and spices. My completely uneducated guess is that in a healthy pregnancy the difference is just a few percent at most. That explains why twins look and act a little differently but could it account for a major difference like gay/straight?
I just dunno. I wonder if there are any baby experts out there.
This is not new in the sense that some researchers have looked at it before but there seems to be more evidence for the “switeched on and off genes” today than ever before. This fits nicely with the notion that psychological treatment of any kind of aberrant or unwanted behavior needs to include thoughts on ways to “heal the broken hearted and set the captives free”.
I have practiced “inner healing” in my counseling for many years but this research seems to point to ways I can pray more specifically and directly for healing. It also seems to point us to generational healing as a means of diagnosing and intervening into current emotional and physical problems.
One thing is for sure, it shows that trauma does have a dramatic effect on later behavior even into succeeding generations and no explanation of sexual preference is complete without taking parental and personal trauma into account. I also reccommend that you read the ACE Studies and the NOVA TV research for all this is reminiscent of Harry F. Harlow’s research on the heterosexual and homosexual issues that resulted from primate studies.
Indeed, the idea of genes being turned on or off is not new, and we may be looking for a gene to support a very complex behaviour, like sexuality, just to find something related to an underlying condition that supports that type of behaviour. It may be that this possibility to develop SSAs is present in a lot more people, but it affects in a more pronounced way people with some vulnerable traits, supported by a set of genes or a process of gene activation. If response to stress is involved by these genes, it may account for the differences in amygdala activation between OSA and SSA men that were found in a recent study.
also, consider the womb environment of a surrogate mother that is not genetically connected to the twins or even one baby. The egg and sperm can come from the parents who use a surrogate.
Drowssap,
Idential twins have the same genetic make-up but can have different exposures to the womb if they are in separate sacks within the womb – also if there are two placentias instead of one, providing their nourishment.
Wait a minute… my brain was a little slow.
Are they saying this is why identical twins are different? By that I mean twins would be EXACTLY identical but environmental exposures cause them to express different genes?
google time
Thanks Drowsap and Jayhuck. I Appreciate the comments.
What does the good doctor have to say on this?
This idea of genes being turned on or off is not that new to those who understand genetics. I read about this some 3 or 4 years ago. It is good to see that my suspicions are finally being confirmed. Stress plays a very big role in so much of what we experience and our world today is filled with it. I think that is where we really need to look for some answers to our understanding on SSA. Stress plays a role in the chemical soup that bathes our cells, especially those in our brains.
Drowssap –
I think Throckmorton put this link up to show that genes can work in all sorts of ways.
You’re right – he probably did, but all it really does is bring us back to the notion that it seems most scientists accept now which is that many behaviors – probably even SSA and OSA – are controlled by genes and the environment 🙂
jayhuck
Let me just concur with you. There is zero evidence that gene silencing causes SSA. I’m just theorizing that it COULD cause SSA.
I think Throckmorton put this link up to show that genes can work in all sorts of ways.
Ivan
If important genes are being turned off by environmental exposures in the womb or early life all bets are off. There is no obvious, theoretical reason that this (or something like this) couldn’t be a trigger for SSA.
That doesn’t mean that gene silencing causes SSA but there aren’t obvious theoretical reasons that it couldn’t.
Put bluntly the concept doesn’t run counter to the theory of natural selection which all major theories on SSA appear to do.
Ivan,
we could speculate all we want – I’m sure Drowssap will 😉 , but we’ll never know until there is some hard evidence
Take a look at the NOVA web on :Ghost in the Genes” and see more on this with videos. It shows why healing prayer is so important. Only prayer can alter some of these physical problems. Thank God, when the Fallen Nature includes genetic trauma we can ask the Holy Spirit to restore the body to health.
Also look at my blog http://garysweetenblogspotcom.blogspot.com for an article on the importance of faith in the attending doctor. A faithless doc or counselor or church leaders is not as effective in treating diseases.
So what kind of relevance might this have on our understanding of the development of homosexuality?
“It’s not just about the sequence of your genes, but how that sequence is turned on and off by environmental exposures that is likely to determine whether you will be healthy,” Volkow said. Imprinted genes “are likely to be particularly susceptible to environmental factors.”
Booyah! 😎