bisexuality in the chromosomes ???

[Long Duck Dong]

lol no we are not genetic freaks

I read a article in a counseling paper and it got my attention

now we all know about the * gay gene * .... * snorts *.......sorry but i don't see that as a fully viable reason for being gay.... i prefer to see gays as naturally gay without needing a gene to be gay, and while they may have a * gay gene * its a tweak of their genetic coding... and not a faulty gene

but anyways, I read this article and it is looking at bisexuality and chromosomes

now simple a lady is XX chromosomes, and a male is XY chromosomes
a male can become a female if you alter the main male hormone... but you remove the female hormone in a female.... they remain female...lol

ok....the article was looking at bisexuality and if the chromosomes play a part in bisexuality and other sexualities....and indeed two studies are under way in sweden, i think it is.... and due for release in about 2008-9....

what they appear to be finding is that bisexuals, have a chromosome tweak...
a lady has XX but one X has a slighter shorter *leg * on one of the X's
a male has XY but the Y has a small leg developing on the Y
in plain english.... that the chromosomes has aspects of the opposite sex as well at the main sexuality of the person

the study is aimed at showing that bisexuals, have the characteristics of both sexes.. and therefore they are naturally bisexual in nature... the sexual aspect of bisexuality becoming a aspect of personality traits.... more than a sexual attraction

if this is proved correct ( and the odds are bloody high that they will, based on preliminary findings )....then it will prove what bisexuals already know..... bisexuality is not a ability to be attracted to both sexes, its a natural part of who we are, and sexual contact with both sexes, is a way we can express this

the advantage of the chromosome tweak... is that it covers the full bisexual spectrum....from slightly gay/ mainly hetero, thru to mainly gay, slightly heterosexual... and it also covers the people that are bisexual, with not sexual contact with the same sex... thru to people that have full and regular sexual contact with both sexes
and yeah it even covers emotional / mental aspects as well

the differcult part, is that it means that bisexuality would lose its * sexuality standing *.... so instead of having a LGBT identity... we would in fact become the DEFAULT sexual identity, as gays and heteros can also have the chromosomal tweak...and so it may become LGHT instead lol

the other thing is that it would rule out the effect that a * gay gene* would play in people... but thats like the cancer gene.... lol... a 20 year study done in 7 countries...found no direct link between cancer and smoking.... but a link between a gene and cancer.... people without the gene, smoked, and didn't develop cancer....... the study results were suppressed, in favour of many 2-3 year studies, that focussed only on smokers and cancer....so that they could say smoking caused cancer, and the gene was never mentioned


anyways back to the chromosomes, centuries of history and research have pointed to the fact that the human race is naturally bisexual in nature.... but changes in environment has led to heterosexuality being classed as the * right * sex and LGBT as a splinter group
but studies of human nature are constantly finding the traits between both sexes, are blurred.....and that the differences between males and females, are primarily mental / emotional.....BY PERSONALITY... the other differences being the make up of the human body....

so how would you feel if you were suddenly told that that your sexual expression was simply that, sexual expression.... and that bisexuality was not as we know it ( sexual attraction to both sexes ) but in fact the base nature of humanity

for me.... it changes nothing.... apart from the way people would see me and mybisexuality

[kitten]

So, this means that my "sexual expression" is an innate part of me and not "choice"?
Although, I knew that already. It has just taken me many years to put it into perspective for myself. I agree this will change nothing for me personally.

[dandelion836]

That being said, genetic studies on behaviour are pretty much non-meaningful. Behaviour is far too complicated and basically the neurological mechanisms behind it aren't understood. Adding extra bits on to chromosomes is most likely to be physiologically damaging and it is far to convenient to say 'if this lump is here then you're bi'. Although your genetic make up will have an amount of effect on your behaviour, it will not all be lumped up together, and is most likely to be different versions of genes than having extra genetic material. I think it'll be a while before we can test kids for their sexuality and save them having to 'come out' :D

[twodelta]

.......so how would you feel if you were suddenly told that that your sexual expression was simply that, sexual expression.... and that bisexuality was not as we know it ( sexual attraction to both sexes ) but in fact the base nature of humanity

I would feel like a very smart person as this is how I have always felt. - Dave

[DiamondDog]

It wouldn't change things at all for me.

Do you have a link to info about that Swedish study LDD?

[Long Duck Dong]

been searching for it, diamond.... the article i read was a magazine article... but i would be keenly interested in actually knowing more about the study


lol dandelion.... tell that to the people that are researching the * gay gene *
.....to my knowledge, there has been no * gay gene * found, that is 100% conclusively responsible for gay behievour

and personally.... i am inclined to say that our sexuality is bisexual at birth.... and we are taught and conditioned by environmental stimuli until we become aware of our own sexuality, and by that stage, we are subconsciously conditioned to a sexuality.....hence it MAY explain people that are one sexuality ( hetero for example ) but drawn to gay/ bi / les porn and sexual interaction.... but they are conditioned that its wrong and so they never follow it up

thats based on years of doing counseling work and seeing a lot of social conditioning in people... and not any scientific studies
and by social conditioning, i am not talking about religion etc... but the less obvious things, like books, toys, conversations, tv programming etc....

[Tickled*Pink]

It seems as though the quest to find answers about why people are the way they are is ongoing. Scientists have been studying many fields related to human behavior for years. They have also tried to find a direct link between chromosomes and alcoholism. I think that although the quest for answers in these areas is surely fascinating to the researchers involved, it seems to lead the rest of us to temple scratching and confusion. I think that because each of us is completely unique, the more important issue lies in how we perceive ourselves individually. Some of us are gay, some are straight, some bisexual, and then there is everything else that hasn't necessarily been labled. I'm not a big fan of lables. As unique individuals, I find it absurd to want to catagorize groups based on sexuality, race, or any other reason. The more comfortable we become in our own skins, the less important these type of "groupings" will be. I am bisexual, but I am also a multitude of so many other things. I think that I would have a difficult time trying to describe in one word the many aspects of my unique personality. I have no desire to search for a term, word or lable so I can feel like I'm part of a certain group. I am who I am, period. Bisexuality is but one aspect of my being. I am happy and comfortable with it, and to me, that's all that counts. :) :) :)

[LoveLion]

I would certainly like to see the article. I am skeptical however. With so many complex factors both biologically and externally that make up who we are, as well as our very limited knowledge of genetics and human behavior, I think it is a little ridiculous to conclude that bisexuality is 100% caused by a short chromosome. But then again Im not expert and I would like to see the facts

[Long Duck Dong]

lol lovelion, so would i....

i am looking for online links to the study, i only have the magazine article at this stage

but i am looking at it from the point of view, that if my chromosomes have a * extra bit * that never made me bisexual....it merely changed the way my body looks....and my body, being nearly hairless ( apart from public and facial hair ) naturally, may be a indication of a body that has a touch more feminine chromosome tweaking, than the average male
and it may explain my ability to experience the same monthly pains and symptoms as a female....and nope i don't have periods, just the symptoms lol

i have read studies over the years that are looking for things like that....looking for chromosome / genetic traits that help us understand how we work... cos many of us understand the way that genetic / chromosome deformities can be reflected in the body and mind development... such as things like trisomy 18 ( my god daughter died after 3 days from that )

but seriously.... I would be highly impressed if they can link chromosome / genetic tweaks, to personality and sexuality....lol...

[LoveLion]

It would be interesting to find a link. but as it stands I dont think a link exists between feminine traits and sexuality. Take me for example. I have very very few feminine traits. I am extremely hairy, more so then most of the guys at my age (although i am of Ukrainian decent so my hairiness might be a feminine trait after all lol), Yet I am 100% Bi. There are also guys I know that are quite feminine, but are completly straight. I think the whole idea that there is a link comes from the fact that alot of homo and bisexuals choose to adopt lifestyles similar to the opposite sex. ie a gay man acting more feminine, styling their hair in a feminine fashion and dressing like a woman.

[bibon]

It would be interesting to find a link. but as it stands I dont think a link exists between feminine traits and sexuality. Take me for example. I have very very few feminine traits. I am extremely hairy, more so then most of the guys at my age (although i am of Ukrainian decent so my hairiness might be a feminine trait after all lol), Yet I am 100% Bi. There are also guys I know that are quite feminine, but are completly straight. I think the whole idea that there is a link comes from the fact that alot of homo and bisexuals choose to adopt lifestyles similar to the opposite sex. ie a gay man acting more feminine, styling their hair in a feminine fashion and dressing like a woman.
I too am very hairy, lots on my arms are lets, hairs on my boobs. A bit on my face, although it is soft. I am bi, but I must say as a woman I prefer playing with women. I like big knockers, my own being quite small.

[holydragoon]

yea that study is sort of a big thing here, especially with the younger bi population. In my opinion it is absurd to say that our bisexuality is a result of how much is missing or how much extra there is on our sex chromosomes. One would have to take into account all the other features humans have that animals do not possess. We are not robots following instincts delivered by our DNA, we have the ability to go through reasoning using cognitive skills vey unique for our organism. Let's say these dumb ass swedes (im swedish so i can sorta say that :tongue: ) found some results, they would be minimal and just a way to have something to make it seem like all that money invested into it was not a waste. A simple twin study would be enough to disprove any of the results hinting on a genetic factor in bisexuality.
Plus it would not explain why some out just emotionally attracted to both sexes and physically to only one. Is there jus so much you can add to the Y chromosome before the man starts feeling he wants to fcuk other men?
ok sorry that was extreme. but i just like to think that bisexuality is natural in the sense that we have the ability to cognativly (dunno if thats a word) assess situations. I believe we can choose what to be, but only to a certain extent. Like a 'heterosexual' can be bisexual if he wants and let's himself be. The only reason he would not like it would be because of taught morals not genetic factors hindering him from getting stimulated through touch by anyone from the same sex.

god i love typing loads of crap that barely make sense :bigrin:

[LoveLion]

I dont think its so much of choosing to be Bi. Of course there is the choice of accepting or rejecting Bi feelings and urges, but I think we can all agree that its not a choice to have those feelings. That doesn't mean that it is all genetic either. The whole nurture vs nature thing comes into play but I dont think preference is defined singly by genetics or by your past, that would be just to damn simple. Its gotta be a combination of both is what i think. Or maybe its not, maybe it is all in out genes. Either way, I know I am who I am and how I got to this point in my life, and I know that I couldnt be any different.

[Danielle_T]

WOW! I had heard something about a Gay or Bi gene as well, i had also heard that there is a gene that is responsible for making me a Transvestite, it all happened in my Mother's womb before i even developed. If this is all correct then my genes conspired to make me a Bi-Sexual, Transgendered person. At any rate, BRING IT ON....WOO HOO.....I'M A BI-SEXUAL TRANSVESTITE....thank you....lol...Dani

[flexuality]

"so how would you feel if you were suddenly told that that your sexual expression was simply that, sexual expression.... and that bisexuality was not as we know it ( sexual attraction to both sexes ) but in fact the base nature of humanity"

Personally, I believe that it IS the base nature of humanity. I believe that we are all sexual beings attracted to other sexual beings and that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to feel.

I also believe that alot of this "judging" of what is "right" or "wrong" stems from the time of Constantine and the council of Nicea back in 325 AD when they put together the Bible as we know it today. They left a hellova lot OUT! Constantine's influence on this was highly political in a time when the Roman Empire was falling apart. What better way to "unite" an Empire than to adopt the Christian faith that was threatening his empire and "streamline" the scriptures to suit his agenda?

Prior to putting together the canon (today's Bible) people were a lot more relaxed about sexuality among other things. This whole idea of "right" and "wrong" was a direct result of the coucil of Nicea. Any scriptures not chosen for the Bible were forbidden to the people after that, and the Bible was ONLY published in Latin and then interpreted for the people by the organized church.

It turned into a list of "right" and "wrong" and "burn in hell" for these supposed "sins" as more of a way to control than anything else. After all, fear is a great controller.

What I find really funny, is that the organized church back then had a list of "sins" that you could pay the church for and be "absolved" of them. Killing your wife cost $2.75!

It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible "thou shalt limit thy sexual attraction to opposite gender from thyself" and the verses that some would have people believe are saying that anything other than "staight" is wrong do not specifically say that. What they DO say is that abusive actions that are not agreed on by all parties are not in the best interest of anyone.

Anyway....that's my :2cents: :)

[hotbicurious]

can you include a link to the article?