User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 61

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    53

    Default

    what kind of connection is there between the brain part which processes verbal ideas and the ideas of cock? O_O;

    But I like your idea, there might be hidden meanings between those poets and words! Hidden innuendo! Or phallic symbolism behind letters; the possibilities are endless.

    This is why I like science (even though I don't really understand nor mastered at it), so many possibilities!

  2. #22
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    The original studies that were done involved men who openly identified themselves, in a variety of different ways, as effeminate.
    In quantifiable, operationally defined terms, what do you mean by 'effeminate'?

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    From the article;

    The results showed that gay men had symmetrical brains like those of straight women, and homosexual women had slightly asymmetrical brains like those of heterosexual men
    Yeah, skimmed the article, didn't really read it. I have issues with secondary sources....

    But, I don't think it was as stasticially significant:
    The study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, found the brain similarities were not as close in the case of gay women and straight men.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    These questions are precisely why we should have reservations about the "findings" of this study. Gay and straight are not narrowly defined. Both men and women generally find themselves falling somewhere in the gray on the continuum of homo/hetero so saying that gay male brains resemble female brains is a bit suspect.
    Sure, but, does that negate a predominately same-sex versus opposite-sex sexual arousal/attraction? This cloudiness of defining terms?


    Additionally, "straight" and "gay", do not necessarily tell us anything about gender roles, comfort level within those roles, or the influence of culture on sexual preference.
    What would this above point have in terms of commentary on what the study is trying to aim for? Its very premise is to look at one hypothesis, that of brain symmetry (a hypothesized 'nature' argument)...why would your above points be relevant?

    The sample that was used most likely involved effeminate gay males who have always identified themselves as homosexual.
    Wouldn't a study that is aiming to do what that study did WANT this? A clean quantitatively viable sample that mimizes such bias that would introduce variance due to ambiguity?

    If it didn't, and tried to incorporate V, the very purpose of the study would be nullified, no?
    It's highly unlikely that "butch" gay males will be found to have brains that are demonstrably different, structurally, from hetero males.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    In quantifiable, operationally defined terms, what do you mean by 'effeminate'?



    Yeah, skimmed the article, didn't really read it. I have issues with secondary sources....

    But, I don't think it was as stasticially significant:
    The study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, found the brain similarities were not as close in the case of gay women and straight men.
    There were several men that had identified themselves as being involved in the "drag" community, for starters. Dressing in women's clothing and putting on full makeup with the intention of passing one's self off as a woman is one objective way to assess behavior as effeminate.

    ef?fem?i?nate
    ??/adj. ??f?m?n?t; v. ??f?m??ne?t/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj. i-fem-uh-nit; v. i-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, -nat?ed, -nat?ing.
    –adjective
    1. (of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.)

    I can go hunt down some of the early studies some time next week if you'd like more specificity. There's a guy named Simon LeVay that did some of the early work (early 90s) that you might want to check out in the mean time.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    There were several men that had identified themselves as being involved in the "drag" community, for starters.
    Does being part of the Drag community make a man more effeminate? Why this assumption?

    EDIT: I see you added some more, again, those in the drag community, for a lot, it's really just a hobby, and not indicative of their persona as a whole. Drag is a character they play. What makes you certain it makes THEM (not the character they play if/when they choose to partake in it) is 'effeminate'?

    What's the connection between partaking in drag shows and being effeminate as a real whole?

    I can go hunt down some of the early studies some time next week if you'd like more specificity.
    Rather than taking our task and blowing it up in greater proportion before the original isn't resolved, let's say, we stick to this study (for now)....what is your definition for using the word, 'effeminate' to describe these men?

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Sure, but, does that negate a predominately same-sex versus opposite-sex sexual arousal/attraction? This cloudiness of defining terms?
    Pretty much. The cloudiness of the terms is precisely what makes the study of "gayness" as a strictly physiological phenomena problematic. The terms all need to be defined with much greater clarity and precision before any such study will be meaningful.




    What would this above point have in terms of commentary on what the study is trying to aim for? Its very premise is to look at one hypothesis, that of brain symmetry (a hypothesized 'nature' argument)...why would your above points be relevant?
    Again, people lie. When they lie you cannot get an accurate read on the phenomena being studied. If a man in your control group, the hetero population, actually has a long history of same-sex relationships with other men but is hesitant to disclose that information your results will be skewed (this has happened btw). By the same token, both men and women who have no strong preference in either direction will throw a wrench in the works. In other words, it's not as easy as just asking "do you like fucking boys or girls?". All of the issues I mentioned will affect the way people respond that question.




    Wouldn't a study that is aiming to do what that study did WANT this? A clean quantitatively viable sample that mimizes such bias that would introduce variance due to ambiguity?
    Definitely NOT. The study was about the correlation between brain structure and homosexual behavior, not about whether you behave like a girl and brain structure. Many, many gay (probably the majority in fact) men are far from effeminate. To say that being gay is necessarily associated with effeminacy is beyond ridiculous. A good study would look for men who identified themselves as gay, but masculine as well, and see if the correlation still existed.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Does being part of the Drag community make a man more effeminate? Why this assumption?

    EDIT: I see you added some more, again, those in the drag community, for a lot, it's really just a hobby, and not indicative of their persona as a whole. Drag is a character they play. What makes you certain it makes THEM (not the character they play if/when they choose to partake in it) is 'effeminate'?

    What's the connection between partaking in drag shows and being effeminate as a real whole?



    Rather than taking our task and blowing it up in greater proportion before the original isn't resolved, let's say, we stick to this study (for now)....what is your definition for using the word, 'effeminate' to describe these men?
    See above.

    Beyond that, I would say effeminate behavior is simply the taking up of practices, behaviors, and mannerisms typically associated with feminine gender roles. If you don't like that definition, I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Pretty much. The cloudiness of the terms is precisely what makes the study of "gayness" as a strictly physiological phenomena problematic. The terms all need to be defined with much greater clarity and precision before any such study will be meaningful.
    But, this point would mean there can be NO study on looking at homosexuality as a biological (or otherwise) phenomenon. I.e., science shouldn't be studying any aspect of 'homosexuality' at all...because your point is, homosexuality hasn't been concretely defined. This whole discussion then would be a moot point, no?

    Because, you're arguing whether 'homosexuality' is REALLY homosexuality. That's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.


    Again, people lie. When they lie you cannot get an accurate read on the phenomena being studied. If a man in your control group, the hetero population, actually has a long history of same-sex relationships with other men but is hesitant to disclose that information your results will be skewed (this has happened btw). By the same token, both men and women who have no strong preference in either direction will throw a wrench in the works. In other words, it's not as easy as just asking "do you like fucking boys or girls?". All of the issues I mentioned will affect the way people respond that question.
    Do you know how the OP study gauged which groups the subjects would belong to, homosexual or heterosexual?

    Definitely NOT. The study was about the correlation between brain structure and homosexual behavior,
    Where did you get that, the bolded?

    No, not about homosexual behaviour. But, homosexuals (meaning, we can't conclude whether there may be a virgin homosexual in the group or not..it's irrelevant). It talks NOTHING of behaviours. By the very premise under investigation in the OP study, it cannot look at behaviour, it would be illogical.


    A good study would look for men who identified themselves as gay, but masculine as well, and see if the correlation still existed.
    And, how would science measure 'masculine'? Secondly, you are correct, but, jumping the gun. It's a step by step validation process, science. One validation ALLOWS for the next, we canot lump, because, (a) one study cannot be all, (b) it would be impractical to go to the second step without validating the first. I.e., This initial study is trying to find differences in brain symmetry comparisons between four groups, Hetereo women, hereto men, homo men, homo women. Meaning, the most precise and conservatively clean methodological approach, would be to pick a sample that are CLEAR extremes, then, once statistical significance is found, do another study looking at the middle range. As you state.


    Beyond that, I would say effeminate behavior is simply the taking up of practices, behaviors, and mannerisms typically associated with feminine gender roles. If you don't like that definition, I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss.
    My point was your specific connection of effeminate with drag. Again, taking up practices, behaviours, mannerisms typically associated with feminine gender roles, I'll give you. Taking it up as part of a character to play, a show would be like saying Daniel Craig is really 007 even in his off-time.

    My issue was not with your definiton (because you didn't give any real definition initially, but, used drag as the example of definition), thus, my issue was with how and to what, you applied it. Much muddling.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    But, this point would mean there can be NO study on looking at homosexuality as a biological (or otherwise) phenomenon. I.e., science shouldn't be studying any aspect of 'homosexuality' at all...because your point is, homosexuality hasn't been concretely defined. This whole discussion then would be a moot point, no?

    Because, you're arguing whether 'homosexuality' is REALLY homosexuality. That's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.



    Agreed. That is precisely why this "article" and others like it are, essentially, a load of shit. They lead people to believe that the terms have been clearly defined and that the phenomena has been rigorously studied in a manner consistent with the scientific method when that has not been the case.

    And, yes, btw the original studies were about homosexual behavior (homosexuality can only be studied by studying behavior). That's all you can look at. If you think there's any other way to assess homosexuality please take a moment to consider the meaning of the term.

    In any event, I'm not terribly interested in debating this issue with you any further. If you're genuinely interested in the topic shoot me a PM and I'll send you the titles to the references. If you're just looking for a sparring partner, I think ptgatsby's around here some where.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    And, yes, btw the original studies were about homosexual behavior (homosexuality can only be studied by studying behavior). That's all you can look at. If you think there's any other way to assess homosexuality please take a moment to consider the meaning of the term.
    Um...a few posts back, I stated I was commenting on your criticisms, from the lens of this particular study, so that we can cleanly and precicely target our dialogue, without talking about "original studies" out there (without any specific references). Which, thanks for the offer of wanting to provide for me. I'll stick to this study for now.

    I think we are understanding behaviour to be two different things in this instance. I'm talking of explicit behaviour as a measurement of a reaction to a given stimulus. You are talking of homosexual behaviour to be interchangeable with how one is defining homsexuality (I agree with this). (e.g., this original study talked of previous studies that looked at brain imaging when they had the subjects 'smell' pheremones and quantifying arousal, and that, it was SPECIFICALLY controlling for such indication of 'behavioural' response, so that it can cleanly look at what the brain is telling at a 'resting phase', i.e., no stimulus with reactionary behaviour)

    To elucidate -

    From the original article/the study:
    However,the major purpose of the present study was to investigate how the rCBF covaries between the amygdala and the rest of the brain during a condition not associated with perceptive, emotional, or cognitive tasks, which could be linked to sexual orientation or behavior.

    By prompting subjects to concentrate on breathing the room air we aimed to minimize variations caused by spontaneous reflections or judgments.


    Agreed. That is precisely why this "article" and others like it are, essentially, a load of shit. They lead people to believe that terms have been clearly defined and that the phenomena has been rigorously studied in a manner consistent with the scientific method when that has not been the case.
    And, this is how they grouped the subjects on homosexuality versus heterosexuality:
    Subjects. Twenty-fiveHeM(age 304 years), 25HeW(age 314 years), 20HoM (age 32 7 years), and 20 HoW (age 31 5 years) were included. All subjects participated in the MR study, and 50 of them (13 HeM, 13 HeW, 12 HoM, and 12 HoW) also participated in the PET studies. All of the subjects were right-handed (60), healthy, and HIV negative. The heterosexual men and women all scored 0, thehomosexual men,and the homosexual womenon average 5.5 on the Kinsey heterosexual/homosexual scale (0 maximally heterosexual, 6 maximally homosexual) (61). In addition to scoring themselves on the Kinsey scale (which is based on self-identification), the subjects also participated in interviews regarding three dimensions of sexual orientation (fantasy, romantic attraction, and sexual behavior) over consecutive 5-year historical time periods, from age 16 to the present (5, 62). All decisions about subjects’ sexual orientation were made in ignorance of the subjects’ PET and MR data.

    Meaning, it is more than just behaviours.
    That's all you can look at. If you think there's any other way to assess homosexuality please take a moment to consider the meaning of the term.
    ***
    In any event, I'm not terribly interested in debating this issue with you any further. If you're genuinely interested in the topic shoot me a PM and I'll send you the titles to the references.
    Fair enough, but I don't know why you seem aggravated with my countering you, I usually ask for precise clarifications before I tackle a point of another so that I don't wrongly assume their point of view/put words in their mouth, etc (also, it gave me the chance to really read up on the article, stalling time, and all, can't read too fast. ). Nothing more, really.

    And, my initial engagement with you was in regards to your criticism of this scientic study and tackling those criticisms that you agreed with, through your initial agreement with another poster (avolkiteshvara) on this thread. Hence, leaving our conversation in this thread versus PM. I'm interested in talking about the OP topic, including dialogue from all out there, through our discourse, and the study it relates to, and criticisms on this thread brought up by it (one of them happened to be you). Not about yours or mine's personal investment (lack of) in it.

    If you're just looking for a sparring partner, I think ptgatsby's around here some where.
    I spar when a topic interests me, regardless of the pretty face who writes on the topic. I don't pick topics by people, but by the interest piqued in the topic itself. Regardless, my apologies for my supposed aggravation caused in you.

    For anyone else, I hunted down the original article (I despise reading scientific studies summarized by pop media, and go to the primary source).

    Savic, I., & Lindstrom, P. (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9403-9408.

    I found a free access to this article (early print edition):
    PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects — PNAS

    Enjoy!

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Men's Sexism and Women's Bodies
    By EJCC in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 08:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO