sexuality

[bjf]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1025276.stm


JVK, how do you think this fits into your

model?

[Surreal]

Interesting. Dont know what to

think of it, but still intersting.

[einstein]

I don't think we can conclude

its genetic by that study.
I've seen somewhere a theory (might have been in JVK's book) that homosexuality was

caused by the wrong horomones in the womb during pregnancy. Any twins will have the same conditions.

If they

could do that with identical twins from different surrogate mothers, I'd believe it. I don't think that

experimental setup is possible.

[bjf]

yea, I do believe that it does

nothing to discount his theory, just wondering how he thinks it all fits in.

[jvkohl]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1025276.stm


JVK, how do you think this fits into

your model?

It's becoming clearer that a gay gene (or more likely genes) predispose less sexual

differentiation of the olfactory system (central nervous system, and reproductive system) by influence migration of

gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) secreting nerve cells on their route to the hypothalamus. The result appears

to be a hypothalamic GnRH pulse which is less frequent and results in further incomplete sexual differentiation

during development. From the available animals models of homosexual orientation it also appears that animals are

responding to same sex pheromones in a manner similar to that which would typically occur in response to opposite

sex pheromones. Links to the articles I've published that detail my approach are available from the Scientific

Evidence page of my website (not an easy read). After first explaining heterosexual attraction via mammalian

pheromones, it was important to also explain homosexual attraction using the same model (since most people fail to

grasp the necessity to explain all of human sexuality using the same model). Current "thoughts" that focus on visual

aspects of physical attraction will never be applicable in any biological approach to sexual orientation. Colleagues

will soon publish an article with results showing that human homosexuals produce different natural body odor, and

that they prefer the natural body odor of other homosexuals.

JVK

[bjf]

Could it be a lack of rone production

that makes gay guys seem more feminine (overall on average), and an increase in rone production that makes lesbians

more butch?

When you say their natural body odor is different, is this with regard to the absence or increase

of chemicals other than rone?

[Watcher]

bjf just a laymans view on this

but there could also be other non LS pheromone compounds responsible. Arone seems to be a key factor but im sure

there are other complex compounds also at work.

But good article Jkohl.

[jvkohl]

The androsterone/etiocholanolone

(A/E) ratio will most likely be the key that opens up many doors when it comes to sexual differentiation, and the

processes involved. It's a bit more complicated than I've indicated, nonetheless. We covered sexual

differentiation best in a 1996 Hormones and Behavior review: From fertilization to adult sexual behavior--my co-

authors were Milton Diamond and Teresa Binstock.

What I expect to see within the next ten years is a report

that homosexual males prefer the scent of a more characteristically female A/E ratio. There should also be more

focus on adrenal androgen production/metabolism--and how it is controlled by other hormones like GnRH.



Meanwhile, the authors of the paper on homosexual odor production and preferences were made aware of the A/E

ratio connection when I spoke with them last April. It's likely that they will follow up with an approach to

isolate these hormones; their metabolism, and their connection to sexual orientation.

Of interest is that the

A/E ratio difference was presented in the early 70's, confirmed, and promptly dismissed by the majority of

researchers. But the late Dr. Leonard Storm, my genetics professor in Las Vegas, and later a collegue at a sexuality

conference, called my attention to it in the early 90's. Then he promptly retrieved the original paper from his

files--published in one of the first issues of Hormones and Behavior, as well as the Newsweek magazine article that

detailed the findings for the general public. I am indebted to him more than he ever knew. Can you imagine

remembering a study from 20 years past, and being able to retrieve it from your files the next day? What made him

think the paper was important enough to think about when it was first published?

It was this stroke of

fortune that helped me proceed with extending the mammalian heterosexual attraction model to homosexual attraction,

circa 1993. At this point, all that remains is for other researchers to "catch the wave." But there are many who do

not want to learn/acknowledge that so much of human sexuality is shared with other mammals. It will be very

interesting to see what happens when the study on homosexual odors/preferences hits the general public between the

eyes. No doubt many people will continue to state that human sexual behavior is so much more complicated; and that

animal studies mean little in this regard. It's easier to go down with dogma than to ride the wave of

change.

JVK