Re: Homosexuality: male & female

Bryant (
24 Sep 1996 09:10:31 -0600

In article <527ick$>,
Yousuf Khan <> wrote:
>On 20 Sep 1996 11:12:36 -0600, (Bryant) wrote:
>>Good question. Unfortunately, our own study on developmental instability
>>and personality/sexual behavior had only 8 homo- and bi-sexuals, so we
>>have far too few individuals to draw statistically significant
>I'd say, how were you even able draw any conclusions at all about
>homosexuals in your previous message with such a small sample?

We didn't. Other studies.

>>Let's say, as we can reasonably expect, that bisexuals are intermediate
>>between homosexuals and heteros--that is, they have intermediate levels
>>of fingerprint and bone asymmetry, etc.
>What's this about bone asymmetry and fingerprints? Last message you were
>mentioning something about birth order in males, and hip-to-waste ratios in

There's a significant relationship between birth order and asymmetry, and
between (fingerprint) asymmetry and homosexuality in males. Both suggest
developmental integrity is perturbed prenatally.

>What possible correlations can fingerprints and bone shapes have with
>homosexuality? I'm starting to get visions of measuring bumps on people's

Heh. Yep: The New Anthropometry. Not really, though. Bilateral FA
(Fluctuating Asymmetry) studies are well established as a sensitive and
reliable indicator of developmental stress. There's a nice intro to the
field in the 1986 Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, if you're
interested, by Palmer and Strobeck.

Likewise, waist-to-hip ratio is an accurate cue of female hormonal
profiles (and fecundity, and so perhaps fertility).

Unlike phrenological measures, FA and WHR are tied to physiological
reality, and are not deterministic. Finding that an individual has low
FA (high developmental integrity) does not mean that he's destined to be
a violent criminal, for instance. On a population level, however, we did
find that men with low FA are more prone to physically assault others to
protect their status.

>>Three, I think, works fine for adult sexualities. I've been avoiding the
>>whole issue of folks who like barnyard animals and children.
>Wouldn't work, even excluding barnyard animal lovers. You'll quickly find
>that bisexuals come in so many varieties that they themselves can't even
>recognize each other. Every individual bisexual seems to have such a
>different level of preference for each gender that only certain stimuli
>will attract them about each type of sexual activity.

So, within bisexual populations, there seems indeed to be a continuum of
preferences. Little wonder, then, that bisexuals have such a difficult
time understanding the strict orientations of homosexuals and
heterosexuals, eh?

Are there similarly discrete "morphs" (analogous to butch and fem, etc.)
amongst heteros?

Bear with me, here. I'm learning a lot, and appreciate your patience.

>Yousuf J. Khan