Titaniumoxide wrote:

I wasn\'t even aware we females produce testosterone at all.
--------most of the testosterone (T) in
women typically comes from the adrenal glands, rather than the female gonads (the ovaries). Two conditions predominate in cases of excess T in women: Congential Adrenal Hyperplasia, and Polycystic ovaries, both of which have been linked to increased masculine behavior and body type.

I was thinking, since people get attracted to one another from receiving and reacting to
each other\'s pheromones, is it possible that people become gay because of their pheromone reception?
---not only possible, but extremely likely, at least in males. I touched on this in the book, and that was 5 1/2 years ago. More recent data--including the report by Savic et al, 2001 strongly support the pheromone-homosexuality link. Trouble is, this type of support is about the most technical that anyone could imagine. Even some of the real heavyweight neuroscientists don\'t quite \"get it.\"
BOTTOM LINE: a gay gene at Xq28 probably codes for and effect on migration of the nerve cells that set up our sense of smell--and everything else about how the sense of smell affects hormone levels linked to sexual orientation. The gay gene predisposes homosexuality, and then odor associations at the subconscious level allow males to imprint more on other males, than on females--from birth on. At puberty, with sexual experience, orgasm reinforces the imprinting and cements the orientation.
I have prepared an extensively documented article (100 citations) about this for publication in Neuroendocrinology Letters. Initially, I thought it would be published in December 2001, but some concerns on the part of the journal editor have delayed publication. The article may need to be resubmitted with changes, or submitted to another journal. I\'m waiting to hear more about this.
Meanwhile, I hope that some of you can understand why many researchers do not approve of the pheromone-sexual orientation link--especially if they have a vested interest in the study of visual appeal. It\'s much easier to say that human sex appeal is based on visual input, than to prove it. Fact is, most of us know that human sex appeal is based on odor/pheromone associations with visual characteristics. But, if you had spent your entire scientific career studying visual appeal, it might be difficult for you--like other scientists I know--to accept the fact that you bet on the wrong horse in attempts to explain human sexuality.

Eg. A male is gay because he is receptive to male\'s pheromones, as opposed to female\'s. And then, I thought, bisexuals are that way because they\'re receptive to both.
---Yes, and transexuals are confused about their sexual identity because their brain is wired to respond to same sex pheromones, but their body isn\'t built that way. And anosmics are asexual because they don\'t have the influence of pheromones to give them any clue as to what \"bonding\" is all about--either with a member of the same sex, or opposite sex. All this stuff is in the literature, though, arguably, I must draw too much from studies on other mammals for support. And some researchers think that animal models should not be used to explain human sexuality. That\'s ridiculous, I know, but that\'s how it is.
The pheromone link to homosexuality was one of the driving forces for product development of SOE, which is based on human reports that homosexual males have ratios of androsterone to etiocholanolone that are representative of females. I started experimenting with androsterone in 1993, and
every experience with it, supports the link between pheromones and sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, I cannot address all this in this forum. But, rest assured, this information will be presented repeatedly until it becomes the accepted paradigm used to explain sexual orientation.
On that note: I presented in 1995 at a very prestigious conference that was held again in 2000. In 1995 there was much skepticism. By the time I presented again (in 2000), none of the behavioral development specialists gave me any flack about the pheromone link to behavioral development or to sexual orientation. Any skepticism was eliminated by data from human studies.
So now what? We wait until the data hits \"critical mass\" and becomes so overwhelmingly convincing that the professors teach their students about pheromones and behavior, and the students become professors who teach--and so on. Finally, everyone will realize what\'s happening, and the old folks who think that human sexuality is all about visual appeal will die out, leaving us with a true perspective on human sexuality--as driven by pheromones (indicated by my signature file).
Meanwhile, be patient and content that you intuitively know more about human sexuality than many of the researchers who have spent their careers studying it.