I'll explain why it only covers guys and not girls. This is basically summary of research. Basically when fetus begins to develop it is obviously genderless, however the brain starts off "female". Through the development of the fetus, the mother produces testosterone which function at the time in developing the differences in the brain between males and females. If the mother undergoes high stress during that stage of pregnancy, her body will produce more estrogen instead of testosterone, and as a side effect preventing the fetus' brain from full developing into a male brain.
Now this does not apply to girls because making more estrogen is kind of what the female brain needs.
How can you say they wouldn't be gay otherwise? you can't, I never said they wouldn't. Guys who have been documented with this prenatal disorder also have excess estrogen production later in life and may have a female voice.
Just saying it's possible to be gay from a disorder, not just by choice. Neither is exclusive. Also just because you had this disorder, doesn't *always* make you gay. Statistically significant amount was though.
I don't remember the exact research name, but it was subject on prenatal hormonal deficiency in males. And it had a follow up study that correlated it to homosexuality and whatever the part of the brain that is responsible for attraction is.
There's also genes that increase the chance of developing altered brain functions (in terms of attraction). But this is much more recent and not as well documented.
EDIT: I'd like to point out I agree with Sire 100%. The reason so many people were upset about this hypothetical situation, is because when they said they'd do the chick over brad pitt, a bunch of you jumped on them. Telling them their choice was bad because she was ugly. Some people even gave her worms and maggots just to convince people to fuck brad pitt. Seriously some people would just fuck the girl in any case over a guy.
ALL vertebrate embryos are inherently female.
I'm sorry but this post is full of bullshit. Were your thesis correct all males would have gay tendencies. Moreover pot smokers would be more likely to be gay as marijuana produces estrogen in high concentrations for rergular users. Furthermore hormone therapy would produce changes in sexuality on a regular basis (while they do on occasion produce sexual side effects it's hardly makes any of the statements you made above conclusive.)
Not to be too giant a dick about it but without some kind of source disclosure with extremely well documented research, that's just loose conjecture based on what might almost sound intuitively correct but can easily be demonstrated as all but completely false.
Regardless of that.. my take on the situaiton is this: The proposed situation is ludicrous. You're arguing biology but moreover you're arguing aesthetics.
Brad pitt > 700lb woman aesthetically.
Does that make me gay?
Does it show a gay tendancy?
No. I can simply recognize when a human being looks pleasing to the eye and by a more direct relation to the brain. Which most men would turn around and scream 'You think brad pitt looks good? FAG!'
My response is that if you can't look at other people of your gender and find something aesthetically pleasing you, yourself, probably look like shit and don't strive to improve your appearance for what could be many reasons ranging from self-esteem, social, etc issues. The point is we all take our ques from somewhere. What we recognize as beautiful in others we attempt to recreate in ourselves. ... or at least i do, it's much easier to adopt habits or change things about yourself based on what you see work for other people than it is to make it up on your own and suffer the pitfalls of experimentation.
For instance; your dad taught you to shave your beard/moustache. Your mom taught you to apply make-up and so on. It's a real easy thing to grasp.
Now conversely:
700lb woman > Brad Pitt biologically.
Disturbing as it is i can't procreate with Brad Pitt.
(I know, sad faces all around right?)
The 700lb woman serves a base function that i, personally, am concerned with being a heterosexual male. As calloused of a statement as it is i don't believe many homosexuals are under the delussion they might become pregnant via their means of sexual interaction.
Now you could say 'ugh, zomg but she's a 700lb fatass, how disgusting.' And you'd most likely be at least somewhat correct to any given person but, you bet your ass if me, brad pitt, and the fatass were the last three people on the planet. I wouldn't be getting laid and neither would most of you. That's not a slam, so don't reply and tell me to go fuck off somewhere. Just think about it.
So there you have it. The choice between the two is only really a seperation point between those who would rather have sex for aesthetic pleasure or biological need based on what little of this thread i could stand to read without blowing a gasket completely.
