I find the whole cloud of hush around the origins of sexuality to be fascinating, as it reeks to me of political correctness (see: sensitivity-based truth avoidance). Basically, because it’s such a charged topic (and therefore obscured from direct study) I continue to try to model the matter.

This story from The Atlantic today gives strong evidence for my model for understanding the topic:

Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto has articulated the “fraternal birth order effect” (FBOE): The more older brothers a male has from the same biological mother, the more likely he is to be a gay adult. The theory is that the mother builds up an accumulating immune response to male fetuses, progressively dampening down masculinity of later-born male fetuses. That’s just a theoretical explanation, although the FBOE itself is unequivocally real; it holds up in study after study across cultures. Blanchard has estimated that the 15 to 29 percent of gay men are gay by virtue of the FBOE. (The effect doesn’t exist with women.)

…and:

Vilain points, for example, to the evidence from girls born with a disorder called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), including that gathered by the University of Cambridge psychologist Melissa Hines. CAH results in naturally increased levels of androgens (a “masculinizing” type of hormone), and females with CAH show relatively high early interest in male-typical childhood activities as well as relatively high rates of bisexuality and lesbianism as adults.

Ok, so here’s the evidence we seem to have:

1. Having multiple male children before you from the same mother is likely to make you gay because your masculinity gets nerfed at the biological level
2. If you’re a woman with elevated androgen levels (male hormones) you tend to be bisexual or lesbian
3. Male body builders who mess with steroids sometimes bottom out their male hormone output and become, for all intents and purposes, stereotypically “girly” while their levels return to normal. We’re talking hand waving, tearing up at the slightest confrontation, etc.
4. We know that the highest performers in extremely competitive, male-dominated professions, such as Wall Street stock trading, tend to have significantly higher testosterone levels. And the performance is correlated to the levels.
5. Men with more male hormones present have more sexual partners and are found more attractive by females
6. Anecdotally (I wouldn’t even know where to start to look for data), women in highly male dominated professions, boxing, stand-up comedy, many others seem to be heavily weighted toward bisexuality or lesbianism
7. Female primates, both humans and now chimps as well, prefer to play with dolls vs. trucks like their male counterparts.

Rachael Maddow is an example I’ve used before. And by the way, I think she’s one of the best pundits/entertainers I’ve ever seen–anywhere. Period. So this isn’t a go at her at all. I also find it funny that people who are so pro-gay instantly think it’s an attack to notice that someone is gay. Think about it.

Anyway, she is a woman who thrives on getting on TV every day and tangling with the nastiest, stupidest people in the world. Going round and round with them. Making them look stupid. She’s very effective at it. She’s also hilarious and has something of a stand-up comedy feel to her. She’s also both pretty and “handsome”, in a boyish way. And if you Google for images of her you’ll notice that she seems to enjoy looking rather androgynous or even boyish in dress/appearance. She has a female partner herself, and here they are together.

Add to that the observation from female comedian Margaret Cho that “The women comedians that are out there are generally gay.” She posits that the heterosexual women simply care too much what men think about them, and drop out for peer pressure. Fair enough, and probably true to some degree. But I have a different theory.

My model says that comedy (and politics) requires a certain type of aggression and “not giving a damn” that is a demonstrably male. See the legion of studies on risk tolerance differences between males and females; it’s quite stark. Basically, the more “male” you are the more you’re likely to throw yourself out there and take crap, give crap, make fun of people openly, mock yourself, etc. And of course, the more male you are the more you like women.

That’s my model, and it both explains why fewer (heterosexual) women are selling stocks on Wall Street, breaking into web sites, doing stand-up comedy, being a fierce political attack figure, etc., as well as why those who are doing those things might tend to exhibit masculine appearance or behavior characteristics. I’m absolutely not saying there aren’t other factors–that would be silly. I’m saying this seems to me to be the major factor.

I’d love to hear thoughts on this.

::

In this study we explore the relationship between attractiveness and aggressiveness in chess. We examine whether people use more aggressive (i.e. riskier) strategies when playing with attractive opponents, whether this affects performance, and whether there are gender differences in the reaction to an attractive opponent. We also investigate if attractive people are more aggressive and thus more risk taking and if they perform better than less attractive people.

[ Paper. ]

Intriguing.

Here’s an interesting snippet from a Scientific Fundamentalist post on Feminism:

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

I mostly agree with this, except for the last part which is a bit hyperbolic.

Thoughts?

Just kind of at a loss to describe my feelings on this.

• I guess I can say the meaning initially blew by me
• Perhaps it’s over my head
• The jokes go down from here

Wow. This is just a microcosm of the negative effect this kind of rubbish has on society as a hole.

No, but seriously, I suppose the one thing I can say is that it’s weird to worry about posting a Burger King advertisement that’s too sexual to be viewed by co-workers.

::

So here’s a question:

If men being attracted to men, or women being attracted to women, is “normal” and distinct from heterosexuality, then why does at least one of the partners in a gay pair have pronounced characteristics of the opposite sex? (one of the men is the “girl”, one of the women is the “boy”, etc.)

I believe the answer is that it’s not “normal” or distinct.

I don’t think there’s any such thing as “gay” attraction. There is only “sexual attraction” between men and women, and this simply gets confused, complicated, distorted, or maligned (depending on your perspective) by the grayscale nature of sexual physiology, culture, and identity.

If being gay were an actual distinct option from heterosexual desire rather than a blending or distortion of it, we would see many couples where both partners were highly typical of their own gender, i.e. men with few feminine characteristics and women with few masculine characteristics.

But we don’t.

To put this another way, why are “bottom” (girl) lesbians attracted to “top” (boy) lesbians? The answer is that it’s natural for bottoms to be attracted to tops, and for girls to be attracted to boys. And that’s the point: it’s no different in gay couples. Their attraction patterns are essentially mimicking the natural pattern seen in “regular” couples.

In short, gay couples aren’t being “gay”; they’re being heterosexual in a non-standard way.

And there’s good reason for this. A number of studies have shown that on tests in which results are predictable based on gender, homosexual subjects score more like the opposite gender. In addition, brain studies have shown that gender is significantly physiological.

So is it really unexpected to have a man who appears to science much like a woman be attracted to a man? Or to have a woman who appears to science much like a man be attracted to women? No. In fact, it would be more interesting if that weren’t the case.

This doesn’t have any bearing, of course, on how public policy should be shaped. I remain in support of gay rights as I always have been. But as always I think it’s harmful to promote a false concept–in this case the notion of a second “type” of sexuality where men like men and women like women.

There isn’t any such distinct type. There’s just boys liking girls, and girls liking boys. With homosexuality you simply have people who embody (more than usual) a blend of both genders, and this results in the behavior we see. ::

Notes

[1] I use the words “normal” and “regular” in this essay. I don’t technically believe in such things with respect to humans; I use them because are quickly understood by readers.

[2] I use “natural” as “typical” here, as anything that occurs in nature can arguably be called natural.

Links

[ Gay Men Share Womens' Talents for Map Reading | telegraph.co.uk ]
[ Symmetry of Homosexual Brain Resembles That of Opposite Sex | sciencedaily.com ]

I’ve done a lot of study on sexual desire in women over the years, for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons, however, is that it’s still an area that hasn’t been sufficiently explained by science.

This article over at the New York Times is an excellent summary of where science is today in understanding the desires of women, and if I had to sum it up it’d be something like: women are sexually attracted to most types of sexual behavior–even stuff they claim not to be attracted to.

It’s been known for a while now, for example, that many straight women are attracted to women–even if they’re also attracted to men. I’ve always had something of a pet theory about this, which goes like this: women are attractive to both men and women because they’re beautiful and humans find beautiful people attractive. But to be attracted to a man one must have a particular modification–a disorder if you will–that allows it.

It would seem logical that this would be for evolution purposes; evolution would have to make men attractive to women to keep the species going, but this wouldn’t necessarily reduce how attractive women find women.

Anyway, just a thought I’ve had–not really a full theory. One thing this doesn’t account for is the myriad of experiments where gay men have shown very little sexual reaction to attractive women.

But yeah, it’s a great read if you’re into this type of psychology. ::

[ What Women Want | nytimes.com ]

From Green Laser + Night + Fog

I am about to present to you the best masculinity test in the entire world. Forget all those brain scans. Forget the surveys. If you’re wondering if someone is a man or not just bust out a nice laser pointer one night, and shine it on something far away.

If the response is, “you’re stupid”, then you’re talking to a woman. If the response is, “Holy God, give me that fucking thing”, you’re talking to a man.

It really is that simple.

Men like to directly influence things. When you light up a stop sign half a mile down the road with a laser pointer you’re saying to the sign (and everyone in view), “I am touching you from way over here, and you can’t stop me. Feel my power.”

When you offer such influence to a woman, in the form of handing her your laser pointer, you might as well be giving her a steamy turd. It’s like stupidest thing she’s ever heard of, and she can’t believe that she’d spend time hanging out with anyone who’d find pleasure in such a thing. And that makes sense. Men want to wield power, and most women couldn’t care less.

So the next time you’re wondering about whether or not someone is masculine or not, wield a nice laser pointer in their vicinity. If their pupils dilate like a 4-year-old boy with a Tonka truck then you know you’re dealing with a man’s man. ::

[ Bad Guys Really Do Get the Most Girls | newscientist.com ]

First, and most importantly, “Duh.”

Secondly, this is well known in the geek world, and I wrote about it here. But I do like the subtlety of this piece.

It’s interesting to contemplate how these traits in an extreme form would be bad for men, but to a more minor degree they can be advantageous. It’s also interesting to point out that the traits still exist therefore they are obviously successful.

Anyway, good stuff.

Links

[ Bad Guys Really Do Get the Most Girls | newscientist.com ]

This is insane. The United States of America in the 21st century, and one in four people in NYC has genital herpes. And the breakdowns are even more staggering.

36% of women have it, but only 19% of men. 49% of blacks have it, but only 14% of whites. 49% of blacks? Half? Are you kidding me? WTF is going on with the black folks and the women in that town? Who are these people? Where do they hang out? Where did they go to school? What caused this?

This is an example of a culture problem that needs addressing — especially since herpes isn’t the only negative outcome of sex that can often result in an STD. And the approach to this problem doesn’t call for an “equal but different culture” theme, but rather a “what the fuck are you doing” theme. We’re talking about ignorant, adult-age children hurting themselves, not equals making informed decisions.

Society suffers when people suffer. It’s our responsibility to keep those within our society from hurting themselves. The question is, how do we do this without becoming the culture police? How do you do it without infringing on basic freedoms? And given the numbers we’re dealing with, combined with a political correctness backdrop, how do we even begin to address the issue without being labeled racist and sexist?

Links

[ Genital Herpes in NYC | yahoo.com ]

I have a bit of cognitive dissonance right now on the topic of sexism. What, for example, makes this ad sexist vs. sexual? Or, what makes any ad sexist vs. sexual? Is it a lack of equality? Is that what we are to believe?

Is it any implication that men are looking at women as sexual animals? Are we as a society attempting to claim that sexuality is about, or should be about, equality?

Maybe I used to watch too many nature shows, but when I see apes and monkeys and lions and tigers having sex, I see them participating in the power exchange. It’s a control game. It’s a domination game.

So, as a study of nature would predict, we as humans play it too. And I don’t think that’s wrong. What’s wrong is not realizing that we as humans are both animals and thinkers at the same time. We have, for the sake of this argument, two levels.

We’re simple, primal beings with tendencies towards aggression and sexuality — both of which give us pleasure — and we’re also highly advanced problem solvers who understand the need for social justice.

We need to accept the fact that we’re not going to extinguish our animal side any time soon, and that attempting to do so is likely to cause more harm than good. The goal should simply be to clearly define the line between the primal and logical. A fragrance ad with a plane full of bimbos should be accepted as good fun for men, just as a similar ad full of men should be for women.

As an example, women portrayed as attractive bimbos shouldn’t imply that women can’t be physicists any more than men portrayed as lumberjacks should imply men can’t be surgeons. Women understand that men have ranges spanning the primal and intellectual, and men should understand that women have those very same ranges.

To put it another way, we accept women viewing men as sex objects because we know they also respect men as more than that. It’s the same for viewing women as sex objects. A man, or a society, that understands that women can span both should not be scolded for appreciating the primal dimension.

Once we as a society grasp this we will be able to accept both bimbo advertisements and female lawyers with equal ease.

–

On a final note, “Bimbos and Lumberjacks” would be a great band name.: