/ Biological perspective on Sexual Orientation - "nature or nurture" approaches
This paper is really interesting; I had no idea these kinds of studies had advanced this far. Good stuff.
Your paragraphs flow smoothly, and the vast majority of your sentences were very clear. All in all, a good read! I am not fluent in the topic, but I did find a couple of things that I wanted to bring to your attention:
Adam et al. (2007) compared neural activation to preferred sexual stimuli and non- preferred sexual stimuli in heterosexual and homosexual men and discovered that within the amygdala the latter had greater activity for preferred sexual stimuli than the former, suggesting the possibility that male homosexual brains may be characterized by atypical patterns of neural activity.
This sentence is so long, I lost track of what's going on! :) Also, this confused me, "...latter had greater activity for preferred sexual stimuli than the former,..."
an online BBC survey involving 159,779 respondents revealed that older brothers increased the odds of homosexuality in men.
Revealed that having
It appears that the fraternal birth order effect has no bearing on female sexuality (Bogaert, 1997). Bogaert (2006) demonstrated that only the number of biological older brothers, and not any other siblings, such as non-biological brothers, significantly predicted homosexuality in men. Moreover, rearing time with older siblings, whether biological or non- biological, had no effect on sexual orientation, suggesting a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth order effect.
This is fascinating!
Is this a typo, or is it just how y'all spell fetus? It seems I have
seen it spelled that way...Oh, ok, you used it several more times, so it must be the acceptable spelling. Why is it spelled different here, I wonder? anyway...
Sexual orientation, like gender, is not a
fixatedfixed entity for which criteria can easily be defined.
Furthermore, Alexander (2000) comments that research on human sexuality should employ the "double confirmation method", whereby sexual dimorphism is established before sexual orientation differences. In other words, a firm understanding of the biological differences between the sexes is necessary before researchers can even consider the possible prenatal factors involved in sexual orientation.
True! I always wondered how they could even begin to understand or study the vagaries of homosexuality vs. bisexuality (and everything in between...) when we don't really have a significant understanding of human
sexuality to begin with. Interesting.
Future research should take a scientific interactionist approach to studying sexual orientation, which acknowledges the importance of both biology and the environment. Such an approach is likely to produce more cogent findings than the current "nature or nurture" approaches.
This is a great final statement.
If you change nothing, it is still very well written!