If you would like to submit a question or make a comment, please email Dr. Taylor at thebrain@arlenetaylor.org.
Oh my! I hope you’ve “accepted” him his whole life. He’s still the same boy you’ve loved for 17 years—you just now have some additional information about his preferences. The quality of your parenting guidelines you have for his behaviors while he lives at home need to be the same as it would have been for any son of yours, straight, asexual, or gay. Above all you want to avoid swinging from one extreme to another. Some parents rejects their child’s sexual orientation and abandon them emotionally and spiritually; others because start walking on eggs for fear they’ll say or do something inappropriate. Either way, the child has lost the benefit of effective parenting.
Bottom line: Loving and accepting your child is one thing; effective parenting is another. Be clear that you would expect the same guideline compliance from him as from your other children and then willing and able to say, “This has nothing to do with your being gay; I am your parent and the choice you want to make is unsafe or inappropriate.” He’ll grow up soon and enough and be out taking on the world for himself. If you really love him, you will provide him with the highest quality parenting of which you are capable—regardless of sexual orientation.
Did you have a question? Your comments suggest a number of concerns you might have. For example:
Being an artist/scientist and being gay are not mutually exclusive concepts. Rather they are overlays. Should you choose to do so, you can access Wikipedia and find lists of notable individuals who have self-identified as homosexual or bisexual, or whose homosexuality or bisexuality has been backed by sources that are usually considered reliable. And yes, as a matter of interest, both Da Vinci and Michelangelo are on the Wikipedia list. View the list here.
Who is asexual? Individuals who identify themselves as such. They’d likely be the only ones to know. The term asexual refers to a state of not being sexually attracted to another human being. These individuals may or may not choose to be celibate but one would assume they are capable of using their sexual equipment should they choose to do so. If you watched the same documentary I saw, then you already know that an estimated 1% of the population believe themselves asexual (about 3.5 million worldwide). Some are romantic with other individuals and some are aromantic. My brain’s opinion is that there is insufficient dialogue in our culture about how to have an intimate relationship, whether or not it involves sexual activity.
Who knows what causes a brain to perceive itself asexual? Sex starts and ends in the brain but apart from that, many things are still a mystery. It’s unfortunate that people often seem to have difficulty decoupling a phenomenon from a contributing cause—especially when a cause is unclear or unknown. You may find more information on line at AVEN, the Asexual Visibility and Education Network.
Do I think your son is gay? I have no idea. He may be or not. Some children know they are different as early as age two or three or four. If your son is experiencing feelings of attraction to members of his own sex at age eight, it can either portend a homosexual orientation, which will predominate as he grows older, or perhaps simply a “phase” which will pass as he discovers the opposite sex.
What would I have said? I hope it would have been as wise as another mother’s response to a similar statement by her six-year-old son. She smiled down at him and said, “If that’s what you want to do when you grow up, I hope that option will be available.” End of discussion. In this case, her son did not turn out to be gay but he continued to have a great deal of admiration for the accomplishments of world-class male athletes.
I hope that you avoid over-reacting to anything your son might say such as, “When I grow up I am going to be a bull-rider (or circus clown, or space astronaut, or fire fighter, or chef, or painter, or actor, or hair-dresser, or any number of other options). And I hope you love him unconditionally for who he is innately and simply because he exists.
The short answer is: You might start by saying “I love you,” rather than “I love you anyway.”
The longer answer is, “In error” about what? In error that he is gay or in error that you are biased and prejudiced or in error that you love him anyway? As a member of the human species, most likely you are both biased and prejudiced. I believe every brain is (see my definitions below.) My question to you would be whether or not you have you taken time to figure out your brain’s bias and identify your learned prejudice(s). What you don’t know you don’t know is likely to come out subconsciously in your behaviors.
Have your behaviors toward your nephew changed in any way since he “came out?” Ask him to give you an example of what led him to arrive at his conclusion. His response, if he is willing to discuss, may provide you with a basis for altering some of your behaviors. If not, it may at least give you additional insight, which can be extremely valuable.
As far as trying to convince him that he is in error, I’d avoid that. To paraphrase a saying that my English father used to quote: a brain convinced against its will is of the same opinion still.
Bias can be described asthe brain’s innate preference toward what is known and familiar. By this definition, every brain is biased. Perhaps the fastest determination a brain ever makes when confronted with something new is whether or not it is known and familiar. When I meet a creature for the first time my brain has already whizzed through a sequence of determinations such as:
You get the idea. Suppose you see a fork on the floor. Your brain will immediately try to identify the object and search for a label. “Ah, a fork.” If your brain had never seen a fork it might be unknown and unfamiliar to you. After that, what your brain has learned about the rules for forks will likely kick in (e.g., the fork should not be on the floor, it needs to be picked up so it doesn’t cause injury, it must be washed before it can be used in preparing or eating food). All things being equal, the brain feels more comfortable with the familiar. Therefore, it makes sense that you may be biased in favor of your own culture and language because it is known and familiar, and in favor of your own sexual orientation.
Prejudice, on the other hand, can be defined as a learned, preconceived opinion about someone or something, positive or negative. For example, I am prejudicedagainst wandering around alone at midnight in the heart of strange city or eating food prepared and offered by road-side venders in almost any country. I am prejudiced toward certain types of favorite foods, music, books, travel, people who have a good sense of humor, and so on. Prejudices are often not only pervasive but also can be powerfully negative in race, culture, politics, religion, education, gender, and sexual orientation (to name just a few).
This is not a game (in spite of the name). It is a highly dangerous and potentially life-threatening activity used to alter one’s state of consciousness. It has been practiced worldwide for generations and has been passed down in playgrounds, summer camps, neighborhoods, and probably via online chat-rooms these days. In almost any group of adults, one can find someone who played this game in some form or another during childhood. It is known by a plethora of other labels including Choking Game, Fainting Game, Dream Game, Pass-out Game, Flat liner, Suffocation Roulette, California Choke, Space Cowboy, Space Monkey, and Purple Dragon to name just a few.
The goal is to achieve a euphoric state by stopping the flow of oxygen-containing blood to the brain. Individuals who engage in this type of activity are typically juvenile males, but juvenile females and adults of both genders have also been involved. The activity has been responsible for hundreds of juvenile deaths, and likely for many others that were listed as “suicides” although no suicide note was left. Even if they survive, people are probably killing brain cells each time they engage in this activity. The damage is also likely to be permanent and cumulative. Neurological disabilities (among survivors) are typically in the juvenile male cohort.
Sometimes children choke each other until the person being choked passes out. The pressure on the arteries is then released and blood flow to the brain resumes causing a “rush” as consciousness returns. There are variations of this activity which involve hyper-ventilating until the participant loses consciousness. The variation in blood pressure may also cause strokes, seizures, and retinal damage.
Sadly enough, most victims are not children in trouble. Rather they tend to be well-liked, active, intelligent, stable youngsters who wanted nothing to do with drugs or alcohol. This was an activity they felt was safe. In addition, they don’t realize that a child choking another child who is injured or who dies, could be indicted and prosecuted for his/her part in the injury or death—not a pretty picture.
It is never safe. This activity is dangerous enough in groups. The danger becomes even greater when a ligature is used and the activity is performed alone. If the individual loses consciousness and there is no one there to immediately release the pressure, he is unable to help himself. Most of the children who have died from this were alone.
Children have no clue about the physiological principles involved and need to be told by the adults in their lives how dangerous this is. Also, most children have no concept of their own mortality. They truly believe nothing can hurt them. Children may not fully understand the outcomes from playing this deadly game, but as they do it more they may become addicted to the rush/experience. As they grow older they continue to do this and it can progress into something even more dangerous. Unfortunately, it is not only children whose brains have been damaged or destroyed by this activity but also adults. Some have used it in an attempt to increase sensations associated with sexual activity (e.g., in combination with masturbation).
The attractions of the activity are myriad. It may be done as a dare, it can induce a brief sense of euphoria, it is reported to enhance erotic feelings, it may be amusing to some to watch others losing consciousness or behaving erratically, the prospect of an altered state of consciousness may be attractive, and participants may appear “cool” because it may be viewed as risky. It is also free, legal, and can appear innocuous to those who don’t understand the mechanism involved.
Warning signs may include:
The only antidote I know of is to talk about this activity and its consequences openly and with everyone—children (starting in elementary grades), parents, and teachers. Young people need to be told by the trusted adults in their lives how dangerous this really is. That information needs to be part of curricula addressing other risky behaviors (e.g., alcohol, street drugs).
You can find additional information at the following website. http://www.deadlygameschildrenplay.com
Research is not yet sufficiently advanced to specifically describe in detail how and when sexual orientation is templated in the brain. What is clear is that the developing fetal brain does undergo templating (gender-patterning) for aspects of human sexuality including sexual identity, orientation, and preference. Nature plus nurture results in an individual’s personal sexual template.
During gestation, templating for sexuality appears to involve a region in the anterior hypothalamus; the INAH3 (the Third Interstitial Nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus) more specifically. This hypothalamic nucleus is on average more than twice as large in the brains of heterosexual males than it is in the brains of females or homosexual males. Critical time periods likely involve the last part of the first trimester and/or the 16 th-26th weeks of gestation. Templating may occur atypically if something interferes with any or all of the process. Research continues in this area. Dorner, Diamond, and Seligman are three individuals who have taken a position on this process. Each has his own way of describing templating.
Dr. Gunter Dorner, a German scientist, said templating of the brain for sexual identity and related behaviors occurs through the development of three centers:
Dr. Milton Diamond, an American scientist, said four stages of development are likely to be involved:
Martin Seligman, PhD, author of the book What You Can Change…and What You Can’t, defined five layers related to human sexuality and templating:
According to Dr. Seligman the ability to change and/or the ease with which a person is able to change is related to the depth of the layer (e.g., the deeper the layer the more difficult it is to achieve change). Thus the core layer is the most resistant to any type of change while sexual performance is the easiest to alter, even though the process may be difficult and painful. He also made the point that while some can learn to exhibit a variety of sex-related behaviors (e.g., can engage in sexual relations with another person through the use of fantasy), the individual’s core identity and orientation toward the type of person he/she wants to be sexual with are likely to remain constant.
You may want to refer to Brain References—Sexuality and the Brain for additional brain facts.
I do recall having made that statement, and probably more than once.Your assumption that I was speaking of homosexuals, however, is off the mark.Who a person is sexually includes at least three components:
In the overwhelming majority of human beings these three components are present in harmony. That is, an individual with male-typical Gender Orientation also has male Gender Identity and tends to exhibit masculine Gender Role behaviors. A person who has female typical Gender Orientation also has female Gender Identity and tends to exhibit feminine Gender Role behaviors. At times, however, these three components are not congruent.
Gender Identity and Gender Orientation can diverge in differing brains. Some individuals decide to change their appearance to match their psychological Gender Identity. If they undergo hormone treatment and sex-change surgery, they are often referred to as transsexual persons. (Wikipedia defines a transsexual person as an individual whose identification with a gender is inconsistent or not culturally associated with their biological sex.) Some (e.g., genetic males who perceive that they are psychological females), may be interested in female sexual partners, whereas others are interested in male sexual partners.
How does this happen? There are any number of possible contributors, some of which are highly speculative. Currently there is little direct evidence, according to Dr. Hines, to support a hormonal contribution to the development of a transsexual person. In many parts of the world, transsexual persons are stigmatized. Discrimination and negative attitudes are often associated with specific religious beliefs or cultural values. There are cultures, however, that seem to have little difficulty integrating individuals who change gender roles.
So how does a person whose three components are harmonious relate to another whose three components are in disharmony? My brain’s opinion is that the topic would need clarification and investigation primarily when one person views another as a potential life partner. In that case, an exploration of each person’s gender identity, role, and orientation would seem to be of critical and long-term importance. Other than that, it reminds me of one of my little French grandmother’s favorite expressions: Tend to your own rat killin’ and let your neighbors tend to theirs.
Epigenetics or cellular memory is a fascinating topic. Scientists have become convinced that there is a form of inheritance in which the behavior of genes in offspring is affected by the life experience of parents. Or to put it another way, epigenetic factors may influence whether specific genes are turned on or turned off. According to some, epigenetics is one of the most scientifically important, and legally and ethically significant, cutting-edge subjects of scientific discovery.
Epigenetics link environmental and genetic influences with traits and characteristics of an individual, and new discoveries reveal that a potentially large range of environmental, dietary, behavioral, cultural, personality, psychiatric traits, and medical experiences can significantly affect the future development and health of an individual and their offspring. This means that in practice parents can pass along attributes they have acquired through experience to their biological children and grandchildren (although at this point the effects do not appear to last indefinitely).
In an article published in the UK entitled “What Genes Remember,” author Phillip Hunter writes: “Historical insults, such as Oliver Cromwell’s brutal reconquest of Ireland in 1649, have led to an embedding of attitudes within the affected communities that persist for generations.” This is now being linked with cellular memory. In a similar way, historical traumas such as transatlantic slavery and the holocaust likely leave some type of cellular memory mark on descendants.
Epigenetic inheritance does not involve rewriting genes, however. Neither does it remove personal choice. Yes, a person may experience something or change a preference based on cellular memory (e.g., A child has nightmares about being killed after receiving the heart of a child who was murdered. A girl becomes pregnant at the age of 15, the age her mother became pregnant with her, even though the girl didn’t conscious know that fact. A boy tries to hang himself repeatedly without ever being told that his grandfather suicided by hanging when the boy’s mother was 5 months pregnant with him—and when given that information made no further attempts to hang himself. An adult male craves Snickers after receiving the heart of a 14-year-old boy who loved Snickers. Infants tend to prefer foods that their mothers ate during pregnancy). In adulthood, whether or not the person decides to eat Snickers or the foods their mother loved, boils down to personal choice.
While there may be potential effects related to epigenetic factors impacting gene expression in relation to homosexuality, I’ve not seen definitive research to date.
First, if the current body of scientific study is moving in the right explanatory direction, a child would likely not choose to be gay any more than it would decide to select autism, or Down syndrome, or savant, or any number of other brain presentations. Life can be much more stressful when a brain does not match societal (to say nothing of familial or religious) expectations for that brain and gender. Most human beings would not consciously select a more stressful life.
Second, while a person’s primary sexual orientation appears to be innate rather than just a personal choice, the selection of behaviors a person chooses to exhibit, having reached the age of accountability, does contain a component of choice. Perhaps that’s where the Scriptural “a leopard cannot change its spots” fits in.
Human beings are a combination of nature (genes, chromosomes, and cellular memory) and nurture (the way in which the environment has acted upon “nature” beginning at least in utero). Perhaps it would be more efficacious to spend less time and energy trying to figure out what happened to an individual brain to cause it to differ from the majority and more time helping such brains to find ways to live balanced, connected, inclusive, and fulfilling lives in both the world and religious communities.
One of your ministerial colleagues made this comment not long ago: I’m always amazed when, in this day and age, a supposedly educated person still believes that one’s sexual orientation is a matter of conscious choice… you can’t “pray the gay away!” Maybe some who are 50/50 or some fraction of bisexuality can choose but not most with whom I have talked.
You may want to refer to Brain References on my website for additional information onCellular Memory and on Sexuality and the Brain. In addition, you may want to refer to Simon LeVay’s book Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why (NY: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Being “different” in this culture, perhaps in any culture, is often a difficult life. Being “different” in a family system or in a religious organization can be even more challenging. The degree of angst the individual experiences likely is the result of a whole host of factors. Some people have found the whole experience so stressful and wounding that they have gotten involved with addictive behaviors in an attempt to feel better. Some have disassociated themselves from family or organization. Still others have just given up and checked out of life—metaphorically or literally.
What would your wife’s response be if your sons revealed they had kidney stones or sickle cell anemia or schizophrenia? Would she tell them to just choose to believe they didn’t?
As an old Scottish proverb goes: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Were people able to alter their sexual orientation by choosing to believe they were straight, some might have done so in response to the enormous pressure they faced to fit in with the majority and/or with expectations. Simply because some marry a member of the opposite gender (typically unsuccessfully) in an attempt to “hide” who they are innately—especially when they live in environments that are unaccepting if not downright punishing—doesn’t appear to alter their innate preferences.
Your question appears to assume that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Since the early 1970s the American Psychiatric Association has maintained that homosexuality, per se, is not a mental disorder.
In terms of change or conversion therapies, Authors Barbara and Allan Pease discuss some of these therapies in their book Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps, along with the apparent lack of success. Change therapies typically push bisexuals either to confine their sexual behaviours to opposite sex only or to be celibate. An unfortunate outcome of some of these change therapies has been attempted or actual suicide.
The American Psychological Association created a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. After a review of relevant research literature, their 2009 conclusion basically was that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon.
Here are some sources:
What I think is really irrelevant. What your daughter may think is, especially if you want a good relationship with her for the rest of your life. I do wonder, however, the reason you would even consider canceling. It’s still your wedding anniversary. It’s still your birthday. It’s still your daughter’s birthday. If she had not shared this information with you, my guess is that your family would joyfully celebrate this year as always. Your daughter is the same girl and has the same sexual orientation she’s likely always had. Nothing has changed except that you now have a piece of information you may not have had last year. Has this resulted in you no longer loving your daughter or desiring to be with her or wanting to continue your family’s celebration tradition? If so, the message to your daughter may be that your love is conditional upon her sexual orientation—or, even worse, upon her hiding information from you.
I hope that your family’s traditional celebration is not about someone’s sexual orientation. Rather, about your biological family members affirming each other and the events that have meaning for you, having a good time together and making more memories. Time with each other on this planet can be very short.
What may happen if you cancel? Will you try to restart the annual celebration next year? Will your daughter have the heart for it or will the magic have been broken and a lovely family tradition killed? And for what? We are on this planet such a relatively short time. On your death bed you will likely not mourn for doing your best to love and affirm your daughter while you were alive; you will likely mourn for not doing that (should you make that choice) and for the wasted years and fractured relationship.
Yes, I have read the retraction. There have been several articles and news releases about this. I admire and appreciate the fact that Spitzer has been willing to publicly address what he now believes was flawed research. That takes a great deal of courage, especially when one initially believed that the studies showed a different perspective.
Oh, yes, there are any number of therapies touted to be able to change a person’s innate sexual orientation. Personally, I have never seen any of them be successful. In fact, I have observed deleterious results in the lives of people who believed the therapies would work and tried diligently to accomplish a change in orientation by implementing the recommended strategies. When the strategies and therapies did not work, the individuals often became discouraged, depressed, and sometimes suicidal. I try to remind people that a leopard does not change its spots. An individual can choose the behaviors they exhibit, but not likely their brain’s innate preference.
Since you asked a question about the “gay gene,” so-called, I know of no definitive research that has identified a specific gay gene. In the early 1990s there were studies done looking for X chromosome linkages. Researchers reportedly used twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles (any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, responsible for hereditary variation). Similarities revolved around a marker known as Xq28, which was quickly dubbed by some as the “gay gene.” This notion still persists in some quarters. That is not to say a gay gene will not be found. It just hasn’t been found definitively—yet.
Your comment made me think of something my father used to tell me when I would say I didn’t understand another’s behavior: “Walk a mile in his/her moccasins and then let’s talk about it.” Of course I couldn’t literally do that but the concept did help put into perspective that each brain is different and that it may be difficult, if not impossible, to really understand another’s issues as that individual perceives them.
According to Alan Downs, the trauma of growing up gay in a world that is run primarily by straight men is deeply wounding in a unique and profound way; that straight men have issues and struggles that are no less wounding but that are quite different from those that a gay male faces. (Downs, Alan, PhD. The Velvet Rage. Overcoming the Pain of Growing up Gay in a Straight Man’s World. P 5-6.)
I’ll have to take his word for it.
Yes, a growing body of knowledge is indicating that homosexuality can run in families, although this often has been hidden in many cases and not discussed openly.
According to authors Barbara and Allan Pease, there is a greater chance of a male being gay if he has brothers, uncles, cousins, or parents (more on the mother’s side) who are also gay. A friend of mine recently discovered—to his great surprise—that his mother was lesbian and that two maternal cousins are gay (one male and one female) along with a paternal uncle. So in his case, homosexuality shows up on both sides of his family in at least two generations.
Psychologist Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario Canada reported that the risk of being gay increases with the number of older brothers. Some mothers may develop antibodies to male fetuses and, in subsequent pregnancies, the antibodies may impact portions of the fetal brain that determine sexual orientation.
A 1995 news release from Stanford University indicated that the probability that the brother of a gay man is gay is about four times higher than normal. Similarly, the odds that the sister of a lesbian is also a lesbian is significantly higher than normal. However, male homosexuality and lesbianism tend to run in different families: sisters with gay brothers are not more likely than normal to be lesbian. A 1993 study that traced the pedigree of pairs of gay brothers found that homosexuality tends to run on the maternal side of the family tree: the brothers had a higher than average number of maternal nephews and uncles who are gay.
Scientists, led by Dean Hamer, an Aids researcher at the US National Cancer Institute, studied the family histories of 114 gay males and found that 13.5 percent of the gay men’s brothers were also homosexual, compared with 2 percent in the general population. They also found that maternal uncles and maternal male cousins were more likely to be homosexual. In some of the families, gay relatives could be traced back three generations.
“What’s wrong here” may involve a number of issues. Parental brain function may or may not be replicated in biological offspring. And even when children do resemble one or both parents, each brain is unique. The fact that you and your husband believe yourselves to be straight has little if anything to do with your daughter’s brain. If she has not been abused by a male (e.g., she is not saying she is gay in order to reduce expectations for marrying a male), her being honest enough to tell you she is attracted to other females is quite brave of her. If it’s a passing fad, she may eventually change her mind. If it represents her brain’s sexual orientation, she will likely not change her mind (whether or not she succumbs to pressure to live a straight lifestyle).
As for willpower, many people misunderstand its role. Willpower is believed to be located in the brain’s executive center, directly behind the forehead, as is working memory. Willpower rarely helps a person stop doing a behavior, especially if it provides some type of reward. Willpower is designed to help you achieve a goal, learn a new skill, or develop a healthier replacement behavior (for one that was resulting in negative outcomes).
Are you familiar with work by Dr. Daniel Wegeman (the white-bear phenomenon)? When you say, “Don’t think about the white bear,” a picture of a white bear pops up in working memory and you actually think about the white bear more than you did before. Saying, “Don’t think about . . .” is relatively unhelpful. The brain first makes a picture from the words and it often misses the “don’t.” Once something goes into working memory, the brain makes no judgment about whether it is good or bad. The brain’s position is: if you put it in working memory that’s what you want, and my job is to help you get it. Therefore, avoid giving negative instructions.
Having said that, I suggest you accept your daughter just as she is, keeping wide the door for open discussion and non-demeaning, non-shaming conversations. She may be gay—and it’s her brain so she’ll be the only one to know who she really is. And if she is gay, my belief is that there is a way for every brain on this planet to live a rewarding and satisfying life. It may not be the one you live, however; and you will need to decide whether you are going to make life harder and more difficult for her than it already is, or love her just as she is even though she is walking a different path from the one you chose.
Some researchers think that digit ratio, as it is sometimes called, is a marker for brain differences molded by prenatal hormones. They think these measurements may tell you something about what was going on in terms of levels of hormones in your mother’s uterus just weeks after your conception, a time when your fingers, and more importantly, your brain, were developing.
Several years ago, an article in Psychology Today (“Sexuality: Your Telltale Fingertips”) briefly discussed the relative lengths of a person’s ring finger versus index finger. The author wrote, “Like a bit of prenatal graffiti, a longer ring finger says, ‘Testosterone was here.'” Because of the influx of sex hormones at this prenatal stage, men tend to have ring fingers that are slightly longer than their index fingers; in females these fingers are usually the same length or the index finger is just a bit longer. Along with external genitalia, relative finger length is the other sexually dimorphic physical trait fixed at birth (other differences showing up at puberty).
A variety of studies have linked digit ratio to a plethora of things including left-handedness, heart disease, autism, aggression, hyperactivity, ADD, etc. According to Dennis McFadden, psychology professor at the U of Texas at Austin, lesbians may be more likely than straight women to have a masculine finger ratio. That does not, however, tell you anything definitively about a specific individual. In my experience, I have met straight women with longer ring fingers, who were (incidentally) excellent athletes. Consequently, you may want to avoid rushing around trying to measure the ring and index fingers of other individuals.
Mirror neurons may help humans to learn new skills by imitation as well as to understand the actions of others. Whether or not these neurons represent an entirely distinct class is still open to discussion. They may start working quite early in life. One study in Nature Neuroscience found that during the second half of their first year, infants come to predict others’ actions and that the mirror neuron system is likely mediating this process. Emerging work on mirror neurons may put a different spin on the old proverb: By observing you become changed.
In response to your question, the book entitled The Body Has a Mind of Its Owncontains a reference to mirror neurons and sexual behaviors.The authors indicate that mirror neurons play a key role in sexual response and may even play a role in homophobias. For example, when people see sexually aroused genitals of the preferred gender (e.g., opposite gender for heterosexuals, same gender for homosexuals), the brain’s mirror neurons and reward centers fire. The authors also point out that when a heterosexual male sees two other men in sexual acts, he can’t help but experience it in his mind’s body, even if it is at a subconscious level. For the truly heterosexual male, this is unappetizing and may make a live-and-let-live attitude more difficult to adopt.
I would be more than willing to report on specific research that pinpoints an exact cause for “a brain to not be heterosexual” if I knew of any. Scientists simply do not clearly understand the origins of individuals not being “straight.” Wikipedia actually put it very well by pointing out that no simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, although research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.
The Netherlands Institutes for Neuroscience released an abstract containing this information: During the intrauterine period the fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or innate sexual orientation. [Source]
My opinion is that the sexual templating of the brain is an extremely complex process. And even if the presence of a gene is validated, there will likely be co-factors that play into how the brain actually templates. About all one can say at this point is, “stay tuned.”
My brain does not know what “obligation” yours might have and you might want to consider some Scriptural admonition:
Bottom line: You may have a definite obligation to be as gracious and Christ-like as possible, leaving it to the Holy Spirit to impress others of the way in which they should behave.
I am unaware of clear scientific evidence that would point to the person “who last had the fetus” as being totally responsible for its brain function. Blaming is really an attempt on the part of an individual to reduce the fear, emotional pain, or confusion the person is feeling. Avoid picking up the blame.
You will have some choices to make. For example: are you going to maintain a relationship with your son? If yes, you may need to do so in a way that doesn’t “rub your husband’s nose in the issue,” especially if he is not open to maintaining a relationship with his offspring himself. Find a way to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.
If your husband does file for divorce (and you may have no say in whether or not he does), how are you going to respond? As one woman said in a similar situation, “I have decided that I’d rather live by myself than be badly accompanied.”
The Serenity Prayer may be helpful. One version reads: Give us the grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.It’s the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other that is sometimes a bit tricky.
I don’t know about hype. Neither do I know that “we’ve known that’s possible for at least 20 years.” Reportedly, the author of a 2003 controversial study on therapy to change sexual orientation has apologized for his conclusions. Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Columbia University, Dr. Robert Spitzer’s apology essentially represents a retraction of his original study conclusions, thus eliminating alleged evidence that a person’s innate sexual orientation can be changed through some type of psychological intervention. The conclusions of Spitzer’s original study were used by some to make claims that sexual orientation is a choice and that can be changed through therapy. There are anecdotal reports of the damage that this type of therapy has done to individuals, including some reported suicides when the therapy didn’t work. Wikipedia has posted a page on the topic. View the page here.
While you did not ask a question, I will make a comment. First, what is your perception of promiscuity? The types of behaviors judged as promiscuous do tend to vary between cultures (and religions) as does the prevalence of promiscuity, with different standards often being applied to different genders and civil status. According to Wikipedia, rapidly becoming a very credible source of information:
Promiscuity in human sexual behavior is the practice of casual sex with multiple sexual partners. The term can carry a moral judgment and be viewed in the context of a main stream social ideal for sexual activity to take place within exclusive committed relationships. A common example of behavior viewed as promiscuous within the mainstream social ideals of mean cultures is the proverbial one-night stand. Historically, stereotypes of the promiscuous woman have tended to be negative, such as the slut, while male stereotypes have been more varied, some expressing approval, such as the stud.
Second, I wonder whether you are really looking at the big picture in terms of monogamy? Studies show that a lack of monogamy occurs overwhelmingly in the general heterosexual population, one-night stands or ongoing adultery. Obviously, that does not appear to be a huge concern of yours.
Finally, what would you like to see in America? Individuals who choose committed monogamous relationships—regardless of gender—or a culture that does not encourage that? Many view same-gender marriages as a vote toward committed relationships and monogamy. Since the “deity” is all about healthy, functional relationships and communication, you might want to rethink your perceptions.
Nothing about the brain is simple and very little is straight-forward. The more I study about brain structure and function, the less simple it appears—but even more interesting. My brain’s opinion is that human sexuality is likely one of the most complex in terms of brain structure and function.
To your question, this is not new information. The findings of two researchers are addressed in a book entitled “Brain Sex.”
East German scientist, Dr. Gunter Dorner, described what he believed were three centers of development in the human hypothalamus:
American scientist Dr. Milton Diamond described his perception of four stages of brain development in the human hypothalamus:
(Moir, Anne, and David Jessel. Brain Sex. p 114-116. NY:Carol Publishing Group, 1989, 1991.)
Rubbish as applied to theories to justify bisexuality or to the perception that human beings begin life with both sets of sex organs and that each possesses the same hormones? Personally, I’ve never thought of either hormones or sex organs in terms of rubbish.
Since every brain on the planet is believed to differ in structure, function, and perspective, each brain has its own opinion. The tone of your question suggests that your opinion on the topic of sex organs and hormones differs rather dramatically from that of your friend. The brain and body are “fearfully and wonderfully” constructed. Whatever else humans are (e.g., relational, spiritual), they are sexual beings at their very core. That does not indicate, however, that a person’s core sexual being and the sexual behaviors he/she chooses to exhibit are one and the same.
In terms of sets of sex organs, your friend was on the right track. Here is a brief summary.
Internal sex organs: Both genetically male (XY) and genetically female (XX) fetuses start out with two sets of internal primordial structures, the Wolffian and the Mullerian.
External sex organs: Both male and female fetuses also start out with a single set of external primordial structures:
Your friend was also on the right track in relation to the topic of hormones. As members of the same species, males and females are far more alike than they are different. This means that as far as is presently known, human beings have the same types of hormones. Relative hormonal levels differ, however. Males tend to have estrogens but at much lower levels than those generally found in females. Females have testosterone but at a much lower level than that typically found in males. Some studies have shown that at puberty the average male has 20 times the testosterone in a comparable female. And speaking of testosterone, competition appears to increase the level of testosterone in the male. Interestingly enough, competition doesn’t appear to have much impact on testosterone levels in the average female.
Sex organs and hormones as rubbish? Not so much. Complexity on top of complexity and fraught with potential for variation? You bet!
Research is not yet sufficiently advanced to specifically describe in detail how and when sexual orientation is templated in the brain. What is clear is that the developing fetal brain does undergo templating (gender-patterning) for aspects of human sexuality including sexual identity, orientation, and preference. Nature plus nurture results in an individual’s personal sexual template.
During gestation, templating for sexuality appears to involve a region in the anterior hypothalamus; the INAH3 (the Third Interstitial Nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus) more specifically. This hypothalamic nucleus is on average more than twice as large in the brains of heterosexual males than it is in the brains of females or homosexual males. Critical time periods likely involve the last part of the first trimester and/or the 16 th-26th weeks of gestation. Templating may occur atypically if something interferes with any or all of the process. Research continues in this area. Dorner, Diamond, and Seligman are three individuals who have taken a position on this process. Each has his own way of describing templating.
Dr. Gunter Dorner, a German scientist, said templating of the brain for sexual identity and related behaviors occurs through the development of three centers:
Dr. Milton Diamond, an American scientist, said four stages of development are likely to be involved:
Martin Seligman, PhD, author of the book What You Can Change…and What You Can’t, defined five layers related to human sexuality and templating:
According to Dr. Seligman the ability to change and/or the ease with which a person is able to change is related to the depth of the layer (e.g., the deeper the layer the more difficult it is to achieve change). Thus the core layer is the most resistant to any type of change while sexual performance is the easiest to alter, even though the process may be difficult and painful. He also made the point that while some can learn to exhibit a variety of sex-related behaviors (e.g., can engage in sexual relations with another person through the use of fantasy), the individual’s core identity and orientation toward the type of person he/she wants to be sexual with are likely to remain constant.
You may want to refer to Brain References—Sexuality and the Brain for additional brain facts.
Simon LeVay PhD addresses these types of questions in his book, Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why (NY:Oxford University Press, 2011). For those of you who are wrestling with solidifying your brain’s opinion on sexual orientation (versus, perhaps, what you have been told to hold as an opinion), LeVay’s book may assist you with obtaining additional perspective. Whether or not this prompts your brain to adopt a new opinion, knowing more about the body of knowledge in this scientific discipline can help you to discuss it in a more informed manner.
There is a wealth of scientific evidence, some more conclusive than others, that points to “one inescapable conclusion: Sexual orientation results primarily from an interaction between genes, sex hormones, and the cells of the developing body and brain.” Thus, the general conclusion from multiple lines of research is quite clear that a person’s sexual orientation arises in large part from biological processes that are already underway before birth.
Dr. LeVay, a British-born neuroscientist, has served on the faculties of Harvard Medical School and the Salk Institute for Biological studies. This is just one of nearly a dozen books he has authored, including the textbook Human Sexuality (Sinauer, 3rd edition 2009).
The Joint Commission (TJC) surveys many healthcare organizations, including hospitals. They advocate for quality healthcare for all patients. Have they become pro-gay? Not that I know. TJC has a current focus on the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and Transgender) community as part of addressing cultural competency for all risk groups. Studies have shown that barriers to equitable care may be more pronounced for the LGBT population group than for other racial/ethnic minorities. Some studies have shown a higher prevalence of specific health risks in the LGBT population (e.g., anxiety and depression, substance abuse, sexually transmitted disease, and some types of cancer).
TJC wants healthcare organizations to be inclusive of all diversity. Recommendations include:
Recently TJC published a 92-page field guide for “Advancing Competence, and Patient and Family Centered Care for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and transgender Community.” (Incidentally, the latest report I’ve seen indicated that 3.5% of Americans are identified as LGB, while 0.3% are identified as transgender.) This field guide may be a response to instances within healthcare organizations that have been found to be problematic. For example, the lesbian partner of a pregnant female was prevented from participating in the labor and delivery process; a male was not allowed to be at the bedside of his dying gay partner, even though they have lived together for 36 years.
Are TJC recommendations a good thing? They certainly can be for the many individuals who have experienced marginalization and/or discrimination. Other organizations might do well to pay attention to the path TJC is forging. We are, after all, members of the same human species, trying to survive and thrive on this planet.
I am a brain-function specialist, not a theologian. Consequently, I am unable to give an opinion about which position represents the truth, theologically. As you already pointed out, opinions differ among theologians—not surprising since every brain is unique in structure, function, and perception.
I found my father’s perspective (he was a preacher) to be quite open, balanced, and helpful: if the deity permits brains to be born with differing preferences, the deity must also have a way for that type of brain not only to be integrated appropriately into society but also into religious communities (should they have that desire). It was also his brain’s opinion that being “saved” is a personal issue between a brain and its Higher Power, and that Biblical injunctions against specific practices (e.g., fornication) address behaviors rather than preference (e.g., the leopard cannot change its spots).
Whatever else human beings are, they are relational and sexual. Some brains (and sex does begin in the brain) seem to have stronger needs for sexual affiliation than others. But the theologians I’ve spoken with are hard put to come up with a Biblical injunction that clearly indicates anyone outside the parameters of a heterosexual brain must be asexual to be saved.
Monogamy is the recommended behavior for sexual behaviors for any number of reasons, health as well as cellular memory. It is fascinating that one rarely observes true monogamy in this world, among even some of the clergy to say nothing of heterosexuals in general. Monogamy means an individual chooses to engage in sexual behaviors with the same one person throughout an entire lifetime. This does not mean being sexually monogamous with one person at a time, which is what is more commonly observed. I refer to that as serial monogamy, where an individual is sexually active and monogamous with one person for perhaps months or years, then the couple separates and each goes on to develop another monogamous sexual relationship for perhaps months or years, and so on.
Religious communities could do a much better job at addressing issues of sexuality in an open and informed manner instead of either simply legislating “don’t have sex before marriage” or pretending that sexual activity doesn’t occur before partnerings at the rate it appears to exist. An adult with a relatively undamaged and normally functioning brain (every brain is damaged in some way or another) can choose whether or not to be monogamous or promiscuous, literally and virtually. And he/she can choose to control the thoughts related to sexual behaviors that are allowed to hang out in the brain.
When I have a conversation with other individuals, my brain is focused on the conversation we are having and the topic under discussion. My brain definitely does not think about how they might “do it.” It never does.
Your comments (I don’t find a questioin) implies a rather stereotypical assumption about how people “do it.” Undoubtedly, there are as many ways to engage in sexual behaviors as there are people doing so.
Choices about sexual behaviors are not necessarily consistent with a person’s core gender identity. My years in public health certainly taught me that. For example, there are cultures in which rectal intercourse between males is perfectly acceptable when a female partner is pregnant. In their view it has nothing to do with an orientation toward being either straight or gay. As one man put it, “It simply has to do with sexual release pure and simple—and beats masturbation.” (I was tempted to ask him to define pure and simple sexual release but I didn’t. It certainly has gotten him a sexually transmitted disease.)
There are also cultures in which rectal intercourse is considered to be a perfectly acceptable form of sexual activity for a female prior to her marriage, in order to make certain she is a “vaginal virgin” at her wedding. And there is a sub-set culture in male prisons in which rectal intercourse is practiced, even though those same males exhibit that behavior only while incarcerated. Once out of prison, they reportedly revert to heterosexual behaviors—whatever those may be. And I could go on. If everyone who “did it” differently (and differently from whom?) just disappeared, a sizable population would likely disappear from this planet.
What you choose to think about is one of the few things over which you have control (assuming your brain is functioning within the parameters of a normal brain, so called). If you can’t stop “thinking about it,” and you feel really ill when you do think about it, you must be spending a lot of time feeling really ill. That would be a choice, of course. Yours. If you truly want to get a handle on this (and you may not), decide what you will think about. Select several healthier replacement thoughts. Use your willpower to help you focus on the replacement thoughts you have selected.
You are not alone in wanting such a formula—although there is none that I know of. Many individuals have fallen in love (or thought it was love) with another person only to realize for whatever reason the other person doesn’t return that same level or type of love. You may remember the old fable about holding a bird tightly enclosed in your hands, which only gives you possession and some sense of control. When you open your hands and set the bird free, however, you risk it not returning to you. If it does return, it likely will be of its own free will. This may be because you are feeding it and offering shelter from the elements and/or that it has some level of bird trust and love for you as a person.
The prerequisite for genuine love is freedom of choice. You can manipulate, punish, try to force compliance, or attempt to purchase it with gifts—but genuine love involves free choice. When you are offered love, when you recognize love as you develop a friendship and relationship, you get to choose: yes, I will accept this and build on it or no, I do not want this. Painful though it may be, genuine love always offers this choice freely—whether or not the offer is accepted. As someone once put it: giving someone all your love is never an assurance that they will love you back. You cannot force love. Give it some time to see if it will grow in their heart, but if it does not, be content that it grew in yours—and move on.
Actually, one of my favorites was written by Melissa Hines, a clinical psychologist who did years of postdoctoral training at the UCLA Brain Research Institute. Entitled Brain Gender and published by Oxford University Press, Inc. (2004), the book contains a wealth of information. Although some of the material is technical and the contents include descriptions of research projects, the language is understandable to a wide variety of readers, including the interested lay person.
More to your question, Dr. Hines wrote in Chapter 5, Gonadal Hormones and Human Sexuality, “Core gender identity and sexual orientation, as well as gender role behaviors, are each independent characteristics and could show different types of relationships to hormones.” She included examples of the multifaceted dimensions of human sexuality and ways in which each may relate to gonadal steroids (hormones) as opposed to chromosomal patterns alone. As a brain-function specialist, I have found Chapter 10 especially fascinating: Sex and the Human Brain. Although similar, the brains of males and females do differ in some structural and functional aspects. Overall intelligence doesn’t appear to be one of them. In other words, although types of intelligences differ among human being in general, and among males and females more specifically, one gender has not been shown to have higher levels of overall intelligence as compared to the opposite gender.
You may be able to pick up a used copy of the book through internet sources such as www.amazon.com.
