I believe it's also a difference in brain anatomy.As is my ADD brain. Sincerely,David

Perhaps the studies don't place enough emphasis on the social and psychological effects of having a gay twin. What concerns me more is the loss experienced by older gays in terms of reproduction. Following the wedding of a dear gay friend, some of us were discussing identity and the gay person in the psychotherapeutic alliance. As a psychotherapist, I like to start with no preconceptions. The identity of the gay client is a starting point and is a given. At that moment the factors under discussion are not so important as the relationship that is about to be forged. But the sense of loss which arises from the personally experienced awareness of lack of reproduction can be evident for some in later years.

Why the sudden flurry of posts on homosexuality and genes? Goodness. This one has the advantage of being a lot subtler than Niger Barber's, but it's still riddled with major questions and, sorry, stereotypes.

Gay men (like me) love hearing that we're attractive and sexy. Doesn't everyone? And there's possibly a grain to it, but a grain it is. Ever seen a broad crosssection of the gay and lesbian population, outside of West Hollywood or Chelsea in New York? Newsflash: We aren't all models! Some of us are sloppy and overweight. Some of us will never be contenders for "American's Next Top Model."

Nor, sorry, are all of us kind, sensitive, caring sweethearts. It's a wee bit of b.s. of traffic in such ridiculous stereotypes, then downplay them, and then make them basis for pretty much your entire argument about a "feminine tipping point."

So I'm a manly man who likes masculine men. Ditto much of the gay male world, only the rest of your scholars haven't quite caught up. Come on, people, let's factor in a bit more than genes and this absurdly reductive claims about sexuality.

You write: "Sexual preferences are inherently about mating, however . . ."

Not in the gay world. We're a little more than people acting out unconsciously our genes. We've progressed a *fraction* beyond *The Naked Ape,* no? Can we leave a tiny bit of room for *psychology* that isn't always biologically determined?? Please?

The authors claim to be donning their "science and description hats." But can they be scientific without examining real world cultural policies and proscriptions? If the proposition is that men who are close to the line on sexual preference are attractive to women, what would be the best way for macho guys to overcome their competitive disadvantage? It seems to me that a good strategy for the macho men would be to encourage their attractive effeminate competitors to embrace their homosexuality and thereby voluntarily remove themselves from competition for women. This would be a particularly good strategy in highly polygynous societies where the elimination of male competition would leave more wives for those men who choose to stay in the competition. But are polygynous societies less homophobic than monogamous societies? If the authors' proposition is correct, I would expect the answer to that question to be "yes," but I bet the answer is a resounding "no." In fact, is there any society in the world where the typical straight male celebrates news that all his buddies are too busy having sex with each other to compete for available women? I know of none, but I am aware of many male dominated societies where men who join the gay team are roundly punished. Is it possible that all straight men are so stupid?

Anonymous and Hank took the thoughts right out of my brain.

Anonymous: You will almost never hear of a modern scientist leaving the kind of "room" you're talking about. The dominant story these days is deterministic evolutionary neuroscience, and to hell with any observations that don't fit the hypothesis!

I have to agree with those who complained that this is just riddled with stereotypes! Traits like "kindness," "empathy," and "sensitivity" aren't "masculine" or "feminine." They're HUMAN traits that are displayed to different degrees by different people at different times in their lives. It's as ridiculous to say that all gay men are generous, sweet, and sensitive as it is to say that all Catholics, all Asian-Americans, or all Liberals exhibit any or all of these traits all the time.

If women prefer men who appreciate traditionally "female" pursuits or share traditionally "feminine" values, perhaps that has less to do with reproductive strategy or an attraction to gay men than with the fact that most people like to be around others who they can relate to. Undoubtedly that's the same reason that many heterosexual men hope to find women who can enjoy extreme sports, camping, or car shows. On the other hand, plenty of women DON'T seek out men with any particular fondness for theater, fashion, or other interests commonly labeled "effeminate." And how would you explain the many gay males who are or like traditionally "masculine" men, as Anonymous noted?

In this day and age, it's frustrating that a publication as reputable as Psychology Today would associate itself with baseless generalizations. Next thing you know, we'll be trying to predict orientation with phrenology!

There has been a lot of work put into this, but there are many things it doesn't explain.

Bisexuals
Lesbians
Gay animals

I must concur with the Martens post. While I agree that the article presents research which has several flaws, the authors are very clear that it is by no means a final word on the topic. Rather, they present some interesting ideas and allow the readers to determine whether they give it any credence. Psychology Today presents scientific topics meant to spurn discussion and only through critical analysis, not knee-jerk judgements, will this kind of discussion be productive.

This adaptation of Miller's hypothesis may be of interest, it postulates that a a non-genetic factor is required to tip men into homosexuality.

Origins of male homosexuality - Conclusion.

" I believe that the downside of this rapid natural selection has not been a certain proportion of exclusively homosexual men but rather a larger proportion of weakly heterosexual men. First, as noted earlier, the genetic predisposition is not acting alone. It seems to be interacting with a more important cause of environmental origin. Second, I have trouble believing that a balanced polymorphism could maintain 3-5% of all men in a state of sexual indifference to women. (I incidentally feel the same way about the ‘gay uncle’ theory, where the reproductive cost of indifference to women is balanced by care given to related children—the cost seems too high to offset the presumed benefit). Third, I have trouble believing that 3-5% of all men were sexually indifferent to women before the late 19th century. Male homosexuality is attested in earlier time periods but usually in a facultative form, i.e., older heterosexual men having sex with boys or with males of servile status.[...]

the likeliest scenario is one where a genetic predisposition weakens male heterosexuality but is not enough, in itself, to cause exclusive male homosexuality. Something in the environment has to push some of these heteros over the borderline. If so, there must be a large population of weakly heterosexual men, certainly much larger than the 3-5% who end up being exclusively homosexual"

Origins of male homosexuality - Conclusion.

Johnny Depp isn't gay.

So maybe those traits are actually masculine??

(and yeah homosexual people aren't necessarily going around giving fashion advice to the cromagnon heterosexuals- I've met people of both orientations with great looks and fashion sence...and sometimes both that go too far with it.)

I wish men in general gave more sence to their non paternal gene pool-that is an attractive manly characteristic no matter what orientation. And beneficial to the gene pool.

Aaron Goetz and Kayla Causey = heterosexuals spouting their prejudices.

Heterosexuals are outsiders with prejudices to homosexuality. Heterosexuals want gay people to have gender expressions that are "opposite" of their heterosexual counterpart to bolster heterosexuality. Sorry you are wrong. Gay people are independent. Gender expression does not determine someone's homosexuality. I ain't here to bolster heterosexuals oppressive ways.

The article states that it has been scientifically known for some time that there are genetic influences with regard to sexual orientation. There have been NO replicated studies that support this theory, in fact, this has been refuted by the study, stating that in no way does the study prove that there is any genetic link to sexual orientation.