quote:

---

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A compound taken from male sweat stimulates the brains of gay men and straight women but not heterosexual men, raising the possibility that homosexual brains are different, researchers in Sweden reported on Monday.

---

quote:

---

compound taken from male sweat stimulates the brains of gay men and straight women

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by punwit:
I just had a brief discussion with my wife on this exact topic. I'd be interested in knowing if a Pavlov's dog type of reaction is happening. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is choice but for this study to be definitive proof of genetic predisposition they'd have to show that it wasn't a conditioned response.

---

I agree punwit. But how would you set a control for that? Test it on homosexual men who have not yet had homosexual sex? (If sex is the payoff on the pavlonian aspect)
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 
Actually, Xavier -- that would be exactly how you'd do it. You do the test on pre-pubescent (or recently pubescent) males, and then wait 30 years to see how many end up gay.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
We've had threads talking about how much of sexuality and what is attractive is learned. This could and I suspect definitely does fall into that category.

I loved the way my boyfriend smelled after exercise, but that was because the smell usually preceded being hugged tightly and/or being told how pretty I am. Of course I liked it.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
What I find funny is that we already knew gay men's brains were physically different, like 20 years ago. I studied about this in '95 when I was at an Alma College psyc class. Actually it wasn't about scent... it was about how the limbic system is different in gay men.

This is old news... but it's nice to one more study added to the pile.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
*shrug*

Just seems like common scents to me.


 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 

quote:

---

Just seems like common scents to me.

---

quote:

---

A compound taken from male sweat stimulates the brains of gay men and straight women but not heterosexual men, raising the possibility that homosexual brains are different,

---

Paraphrase: "Gay men and straight women are aroused by men, while straight men are not, indicating that gay men may be different from straight men."

Maybe I'm just missing something, but how is that news? We already know "homosexual brains" are different from heterosexual brains because they activate a sexual response to different stimuli. That's what makes them homosexual. They're actually spending money to find that out?
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Gotta give scientists something to do.
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 
Remember when they did that study that concluded that you'll gain weight if you drink too much beer?
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
LOL!

 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Guys, its not the sweat they were smelling, it was the pheramone extracted from the sweat.

You know, those things you cannot consciously detect?

So being stimulated by the pheramone is NOT your choice?

So its not news that homosexuality is not a choice?

Guess we shouldn't have any debates here about it then.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
If I smell apple pie and it makes me feel good because it brings back fond memories of childhood, it wasn't by my choice. That doesn't mean it's genetic either. If you're attracted to men, pheromones from men might become attractive to you as well.

It could be genetic, but it could be conditioning as well. I don't see how it's conclusive one way or the other.
 

---

Posted by starlooker (Member # 7495) on :
 
*grins*

Why on earth do you think that scientific research ever "concludes" anything?

Of course causation cannot be inferred from this single study, especially given the way it was set up. That's just... silly. (And, for the record, I do not believe that being gay is a choice and I am very liberal in my views on the matter. However, I also know that inferring causation is one of the major sins of armchair psychologists).

But it does give a jumping off point for future studies. It gives longitudinal studies something else to look for (although, Lord help people trying to get funding for those these days). Also, whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, it might give more credence to the idea that conversion therapy is not likely to "work" because there are reactions that occur that are not at the level of choice or consciousness. However these reactions started, it's an example of a way that they're present.

And as far as the "who's funding these studies?" things go, may I point out that one of the tenets of empiricism, from which most psychological research tends to be based, is that one builds upon proof? If there's no evidence of an assumption that you're making, then you're gonna get torn apart when you're reviewed OR you could just be making a grave error of assuming something that isn't true.

You know that quote from SftD, "We question all the things we believe, except for the things we really believe, and those we never think to question."? Right. It applies to psychological research. The ideal is to question the things we really believe. Or, at least, that someone eventually won't really believe that and will question it.

(Of course, this is the ideal. The problems that are actually run into is a whole 'nother post.)

Oh, and don't get me started on how the media tends to twist the actual findings. Of course, "Scientist has proof that eating hot dogs may cause violent behavior!" makes a much better headline than, "In a correlational study made up of a convenience sample, it turns out that there was a small but significant correlation between amount of hotdogs self-reported to be eaten in the past year and self-reported violent behavior. Other scientists have contradictory findings and some find the study to be methodologically flawed, although the extent to which this influenced the study's findings will not be known until studies which replicate or fail to replicate this finding are conducted."
 

---