i was flipping through
usatoday when i came across this:
If your gaydar's on the fritz, the Los Angeles Times lays out
some possible "sexual orientation correlates." We're talking about
clues to the biological roots of homosexuality, not stereotypical
characteristics, such as a love for all things Judy Garland. For men,
try counting the number of older brothers they have (the more they
have, the greater the chance they're gay, which might be related to
"anti-boy" antibodies in their mother's womb, research suggests). For
men and women, look at which hand they write with (straight men and
women are more likely to be right-handed, which could be related to
testosterone exposure in the womb).
this is what scientists are getting paid for nowadays?!
(and for that matter, this is what journalists are getting paid to write?)i find it ridiculous to publish research that is borderline absurd. for example, the LAT story discusses penis size in gay vs. straight men. apparently, gay men will have a longer/wider penis when compared to a straight men. they go into a scientific analysis, finishing it off with how the GOT the data.
apparently, the researcher just asked for the
men to measure themselves at home. they even point out the obvious: men may have exaggerated the results, to make themselves sound *ahem* more than they are.
it just seems that a lot of the research was reaching at overly-flamboyant straws. i'm sure that people are looking for "a way to explain away the gay", but it's not that simple.
yes, i believe that people don't choose to be gay. i think that it's something they are born with, and destined to be.
but i don't think that half-assed results that only "explain" why/how of a portion of the gay population is correct. i am
proud to be
friends with quite a few members of the
LGBT community. in fact, my uncle and his partner have been together for 20 years, and exemplify what a relationship should be, regardless of orientation. they are one of the couples alex and i aspire to be like one day.
it's often been said that left-handed people are more creative, artistic and colorful.
it doesn't take a scientist to use this generalization and
apply it to the stereotypical over-the-top nature of how a gay person is pictured in society.and the older brother thing? puh-lease. i won't even go into how
overly-contrived this is.
what are your thoughts? do you think this research could be on to something, or is just
totally bogus?
Comments (2)
Awww..I'm right-handed and I'm creative =(
And I think the older brother thing is odd..I was thinking more older sisters would be more of an influence
I say it's bogus, but all those "studies" are really just polls or surveys of generalities to try to find signs of whose gay or straight. There is no real scientific method used on this, which was implemented so anyone can repeat the same experiment and get the same results and prove that it's true.
That is like saying your sexual orientation is tied to what your choice of food to eat, like which likes spicy food or has more of a sweet-tooth. There is too many variables to actually affects that aspect.
As for the whether it's a choice or not, I say it doesn't matter either way to anyone besides the person themselves. So why isn't there more useful studies being done on stuff like help world hunger, cheaper fuels/energy source, curing cancer, AIDS, and other worldly issues that looks like it will persists in the next 50 years maybe 100 at the pace we are going.