A sexuality spectrum?
well, when it comes to the fruitfly, our closer-than-you-might-expect relative, it seems that a single gene is sufficient to determine all aspects of sexual orientation and behavior!
but since our developmental process is slightly more complicated, we still don't have a clear answer , and it's probably a combination of pre- and post-natal cellular environments, neuro-genetics and hormones, and psychological/social factors, something along the lines of a bio-psycho-social model.
Here's what I think. it's not a black-white situation. I know that in general people are labelled either straight or gay or bi, but I have a feeling that the situation is a bit more complicated than that.
As with every other aspect in our body, there must be a spectrum of expression of thousands of genes that results in a unique healthy individual. now, when the spectrum is extremely shifted one way or another, so that protein levels are either too high or too low or even absent, then we have a pathology or a disorder.
what makes us all different is first and foremost our genetics (eye color, skin color, etc). but more so it's the subtle differences in the spectrum of expression of genes that are common to all of us. That's why for example, people have subtle differences in alcohol tolerance, metabolism, response to stress, character etc..
what about sexual orientation? i agree, people who identify themselves as gay/straight/bisexual are for the most part gay/straight/bisexual, respectively, and always will be. But is that all? isn't there a slight deviance? I think there is.
I've had this conversation with a lot of people, and most of them admit that even though they are, and always will be, straight/gay (I haven't met a bisexual, at least not one that i know of), they have felt real physical attraction to some members the other sex on occasion. I mean we can deny it, ignore it, hide it, whatever, but at least let's think about it.
oh, and I'm straight, for the most part :-)
posted by Laila K at
15:13
24 Comments:
The orthodox view would defend that the propagation of the human race is not left to mere accident or the caprices of the individual, but is guaranteed by the laws of nature, which are enforced by this irresistible impulse. It also would argue that sex and sensual enjoyment is about a hidden deep need to propagate our selves. This is obviously not true, hence the homosexual choice (read Krafft-Ebbing, psychopathia Sexualis). Is it nature or nurture or just a mere random choice? There hasn’t been an answer to that but it is a fact that some children exhibit some sort of a trans-sexual behavior early on even when their siblings don’t. I do think it has to be in our genetic makeover and that at the same time our sexuality and social circumstances do affect our sexual orientation and choice. This could be completely irrespective of gender determination and social norms. Sensual pleasure comes from physical fitness. It would be illogical to dismiss the physical fitness of the same gender. I think you’re right, it is a spectrum and we all exhibit tendencies that span the spectrum. Left the choice, we would definitely be more experimental.
who's in the picture?
A'wa epigeneticist/developmental biologist I know!!
So considering your background, I felt that you are slightly biased to explain things through genetic influences (because by instinct now you like to characterize genes and study their regulation). And I agree with Mirvat that psychological cues are as important in determining sexual orientation.
And what about asexuality, which is now categorized as 'sexual orientation' (or lacking orientation at that). so these are people who lack feelings of sexual attraction and/or sexual desire.
How do you explain that through genetic influences? are they knock outs?
knock outs...hahahaha
mirvat,I agree. It also has a lot to do with your psych. what is described as attractive, beautiful, or sexual can differ so much from one person to another..what determines that?
gus,as I said I think it's a combination of factors, bio/psycho/ and social. and I admit that might be biased because i actually do think that genes and their products play a very big role in establishing where you finally end up on the spectrum! Concerning the asexuals (do they really exist??), I don't think they're knockouts, unfortunately fot them they may have not yet found what stimulates them, and probably have really low sexual hormone levels, of course due to a dirsuption in their gene regulation :)
if a sexuals do exist, i would hope, like laila said, they have not found what would stimulate them yet. low hormonal level and genetic disorders, we're not talking about sexual disorders here!
and laila, what determines what is attractive..what determines what tastes good.. your bilogical equipments (your senses) and memory that relays a reaction that surely has been dictated by previous experience. in other words, who the hell knows?
hmmmm....that picture really reminded me of another one...with the same neck extension and face angle and lip posture...it's funny, i have a big smile on my face..sexuality is healthy as long as it doesn't hurt anyone; then the big question becomes knowing what hurts and what doesn't eh?
oh, i forgot to state my rxn: fuck laila! what would salam say if she saw this?@!@#$%
hey apricot, welcome my dear.
sexuality is healthy, but "do you believe in the spectrum" :)
and let's always hope and pray that salam will NOT be seeing this.
yes, spectrum is the game...hey, how much difference is there b/w our genes and that of the fly you mentioned? i forgot...there's a wonderful book i'm reading called Mapping the Human History, are you interested? it's about genes and where we came from
apricot,
you know I'm always interested in new stuff..so the fly has four pairs of chromosomes: the X/Y sex chromosomes and the autosomes 2,3, and 4. The size of the genome is about 165 million bps and contains around 14,000 genes (by comparison, the human genome has around 3,300 million bases and about 30,000 genes; yeast has about 5800 genes in 13.5 million base bases)..cool, no? we only have double the amount of genes of the fly, and 5 times more than yeast!
why is that fascinating?
it's not about the number of the genes. it's about the different splicing and regulation of expression patterns that are unique on the cell level (developmentally). that's why it's not about the genes..it's about the proteins. and as a signaling person, i would even say, it's not about the proteins, it's the scaffolds and the pathways that link these proteins.
mirvat..those proteins you're talking about would not even start to exist if it was not for their genes..don't mess with the genes yo!
and the reason it is fascinating,is that only double the amount of genes makes us so much more complex than a fly(and I know it finally depends on the protein..so spare me!), dont u agree?
no you di'int!!
you're dissing my proteins biatch!
no, you're right, it's amazing. what about c. elegans?
I think the amount of genes in C Elegans is also 13000 to 15000 (identified so far)..
but if one was to be objective (and one never is), one would say that it's the genetics/epigenetics/translation/development/communication/sginaling/ ECM..combined together that creates a miraculously organized fly/flower/human/worm
what's that? it's signaling..right you are.
that's weird, i could swear i had communication/signaling/ECM written there, and now it's just..gone! stupid blogger.
it's sign signaling is just... not your thing.
I am very sick. grippe shar...
i'm still sick too. couldn't work today
and how is this related to the sexual spectrum?
again, this is not a chatroom!
aaah..weak gene?
what's even more mind boggling is that we are 99.9% identical genetically...it's food for thought, especially for ethnocentric people
zanzounito,
exactly! i think we're only at the very beginning of understanding how these changes come to life (phenotypes vs genotypes).
Post a Comment
<< Home