I discovered a new word today that I'm sure anyone with knowledge of genetics is already familiar with: epigenomes.
According to the National Human Gemone Reasearch Institute
What is the epigenome?
The epigenome is a multitude of chemical compounds that can tell the genome what to do.
The reason this came up is because of an msn.com article about University of California, Los Angeles, molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun conducting research on the link between genetics and sexual orientation.
I have long been a fan of imprinting as the best theory as to how specific sexual desires are acquired and, to me, the epigenome has the potential to be the missing link that establishes the connection between genetics and environment when it comes to sexuality.
I would like to expand on Ngun's position a bit. The expression "sexual orientation" is misleading because it implies homosexuality/heterosexuality is some kind of unique, black and white distinction in the realm of human sexuality. People who are not asexual are biologically programmed to be sexually stimulated by certain objects and/or activities. The things that trigger a sexual response vary with the individual, but, biologically, they are all part of the same mechanism. Sexual stimulation can be triggered by any combination of male characteristics, female characteristics, animal characteristics, or just about any object you can think of including blood, hair, balloons, panties, shoes and diapers. Any label we apply to specific desires may have a strong social bias, but the distinction is an artificial one as they are all the same in terms of physical sexuality. I'm ignoring psychological factors here, such as mental illnesses, because that is a different subject.
Does this sound reasonable so far?
Epigenomes anyone?
According to the National Human Gemone Reasearch Institute
Quote:
What is the epigenome?
The epigenome is a multitude of chemical compounds that can tell the genome what to do.
The reason this came up is because of an msn.com article about University of California, Los Angeles, molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun conducting research on the link between genetics and sexual orientation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Los Angeles Times article referenced by MSN
I would like to expand on Ngun's position a bit. The expression "sexual orientation" is misleading because it implies homosexuality/heterosexuality is some kind of unique, black and white distinction in the realm of human sexuality. People who are not asexual are biologically programmed to be sexually stimulated by certain objects and/or activities. The things that trigger a sexual response vary with the individual, but, biologically, they are all part of the same mechanism. Sexual stimulation can be triggered by any combination of male characteristics, female characteristics, animal characteristics, or just about any object you can think of including blood, hair, balloons, panties, shoes and diapers. Any label we apply to specific desires may have a strong social bias, but the distinction is an artificial one as they are all the same in terms of physical sexuality. I'm ignoring psychological factors here, such as mental illnesses, because that is a different subject.
Does this sound reasonable so far?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire