Science | Ask Garnet

Liberal Bias

I was thinking about it today and realized that the reason that the super conservative religious right thinks everything is liberally biased is because they don’t believe in facts. Now before you get in a tizzy, let me clarify this. What I mean by facts is logic, reason, and science. These things do not mesh well with a literal translation of the bible because the bible was written centuries ago when there was a lot less of those things.

How can you possibly reconcile the two things if you believe the bible is to be translated literally? You can’t. And therefore, they choose to believe god, the bible, and religious figures over science. And you just cannot reason with them. You can tell them the facts and point to the research, but it doesn’t matter because in their heart they know that those facts aren’t right. You can’t argue with someone who is coming from a system of beliefs as truths.

So what does this have to do with this blog? I mean heck I’m only supposed to talk about sex, sexuality, gender, and relationships. But religion plays a huge part in all of that. These folks that are ignoring facts ignore the studies that homosexual parents do just as good of a job raising kids as heterosexual parents do. They ignore the fact that abstinence education does not work (and prolonging the time before having sex, but still ending up pregnant because you don’t know anything about contraception is not effective in my opinion). They ignore the fact that homosexual marriage has not ruined heterosexual marriage. They ignore the fact that there are more than two sexes. They ignore the fact that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

And the worst part is that these people aren’t just sitting idly by thinking these things. They’re an active movement. They are trying (and sometimes succeeding) at changing laws to reflect their beliefs which are not based in fact. And anyone who tries to tell them different is an elitist. Because let’s face it, most people who are highly educated tend to believe in facts.

When did education become an evil? When did facts start being ignored? And when did ignoring facts become a big part of public policy? Why are so many people complaining about wasted government spending, but they’re all for throwing money at things that have been shown to not work?

You’ll have to forgive me if you’ve all already realized this before. I was not raised in a religious household and have to come to these conclusions on my own. Like the time when I realized that people got their morality from a book. That one blew my mind.

And I want to be very clear here. As I have said before, I take no issue with religion or the religious themselves. In the vein of the supposedly non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic, etc I’d like to say: “My best friend is a Christian, and I have no problem with her.” I take issue when religion is used in the name of hurting and hating others.

Anti-Prostitution Laws and Violence Against Sex Workers

A Canadian study published this month shows a correlation between violence against sex workers and anti-prostitution laws. Read about it here.

If we’re really interested in curbing prostitution there are other ways to go about it. Decriminalizing the selling of sex, but criminalizing the buying of sex is one big part of that. With a smaller demand, there will be a smaller supply. As long as men are willing to pay for prostitutes there will be prostitutes.

Also, having better health care, job training, and general opportunities for women living in poverty would mean women can find other forms of employment where they can actually make a living wage. The study also suggests better violence prevention efforts, policy reforms, and improved access to housing and drug treatment in order to decrease the rates of violence against sex workers.

Studies of Homosexuality

The science world has been coming out with a lot of different studies about the biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals in an attempt to better understand how and why (biologically) homosexuality occurs in humans. Some of these studies include:

- Different brain sizes
- Sexually antagonistic selection
- Birth order

I think it is very important to study sexuality and not just homosexuality, but all types. However, there are also things one should keep in mind when reading or talking about these studies. Because while I think science can be a wonderful thing, it can also be subject to cultural and personal biases. Recently a strong intelligent feminist woman, Susan Skoog, put it very well in response to the article about different brain sizes (copied with her permission):

“There are some major problems with sexuality studies like this.

1. When neurologists try to determine once and for all the “innate” causes of sexuality, they don’t realize the culturally-dependent framework they’re using. That is, what do “gay” and “straight” mean to the researchers? How do they determine “gay” brains in the sample? By the self-reported preference of the subjects? By a survey of sexual behaviors over time? By their “deviance” from “straight” behavior? By their measured response to sexual stimuli?

All of these criteria are contingent upon subjective reflection and agreement upon terms (totally valid in the social sciences and in our personal sexual lives, but NOT in the realm of biological research.) For example, am I a lesbian if I have slept with women in the past year? The past 10 years? Or if I have never slept with one, but they turn me on? Or if (like the radicalesbians of the 1970s) I identify politically with women-loving-women? Who gets to say?

(referencing a point made earlier by someone else) I second the point about bisexuality. In every study I’ve read, bisexuality has been made invisible or given short shrift by being lumped into the study samples as “straight” or “gay” depending on the researcher. If bi means gay, we have a problem.

This philosophizing about “what is gay?” may at first seem like splitting hairs, but unless we can create objective operational definitions about sexual orientation, there’s no way to do science about it.

Sexual tastes are not static entities– everyone’s sexuality develops and becomes enriched throughout life, and may even contradict itself. One person may go through many labels. To some people, their orientation has always been rock-solid. Others wrestle to develop/discover themselves more slowly. Still others refuse to define themselves at all. Are scientists going to look for the biological underpinnings of each of these?

Sexuality is much more than gender-choice; it’s layered like an onion. Which is not to say that sexuality may be willfully changed either. I see no evidence to support anyone forcing themselves or others out of their sexuality.

2. Many of the brain studies (such as Simon LeVay’s hypothalamic region study, and others’ explorations of hormonal balances) sought to look for the ways in which male homosexuals’ brains were “feminized.” This confuses gender identity/expression with sexual preference and is dangerously unscientific.

3. Much of the sexuality research of the past 125 years has been focused on finding the biological quality separating gay people from everyone else. Straight brains are the controls in these studies–this is a big problem. When so little research has been performed on “straight” brains to find out how they tick sexually, how can we look at homosexuality without reducing it to an aberration from straightness? This reinforces the conception that all queerness is a flawed version of “normal” sexual response, as if there was such a thing.

I believe these sex researchers, for the most part, have good intentions, but their methods are inadequate, and their biases go unexamined. This is with the marked exception of the homophobic and transphobic Dr. Michael Bailey, who has stated publicly that if scientists could find the cause of homosexuality, he would strive to cure it.”

Whether or not you agree with all of her points, it is important to keep each of them in mind when you read studies like these. Critical thinking is a much needed skill that many people seem to no longer employ when scientists or journalists start talking.

Lube Experiment (Now with video!)

So I was reading a sex education book that is a bit out of date and has some inaccurate information in it, but otherwise is a reasonably good resource. Anyways the point is that it said that silicone lube is highly flammable. Oddly enough in all of the reading I’ve done I’d never heard this before. Or actually a more likely story is that it just hasn’t stuck. Well it will stick now because today we did lube science.

That’s right, we lit lubes on fire. I have a much larger supply of water-based lubricants since I use a lot of sex toys and I don’t want them to melt. So we tried 3 different water based lubricants: one with no glycerine and no parabens, one with glycerine but no parabens, and one with no glycerine but with parabens. None of these were flammable. In fact they all extinguished the fire so if you’re ever in a fire and there is nothing to put it out with, but you have water-based lube handy it may just save your life … but I wouldn’t count on it.

You will want to be absolutely sure that that lube you’re putting out your fire with is water-based though because as the book I was reading said, silicone lube is indeed highly flammable. I only had one brand of silicone lubricant to test unfortunately (the other one is going to be given to the winner of the lube contest that you should all be entering). The lube was Doc Johnson’s iLube and when a lit match was held to a small puddle of the stuff the lube burst into flames. I was amazed at this and was not happy just knowing about one lube so I called a friend and had him set flame to his Eros silicone lube and he said that it also burst into flames. So I’d say that our results are pretty conclusive. Silicone lube is very flammable.

But why do you care, right? You’re using it for sex, not as a lining in your baby’s crib. You should care because silicone lube does not come off easily. This is a great property for a lube, but not such a great property if you’re dealing with fire. This can especially be a concern if you play with candle wax during sex, are the romantic room full of candles type, or you like to cook a snack between sex romps to get more energy. I am imagining hands and genitals bursting into flames at very inopportune moments (really every moment is inopportune when it comes to bursting into flames though). So the point of this blog is to say that if you’re using silicone lubricants BE CAREFUL!!! Wash your hands with soap and water before you handle fire and do not wipe your silicone lube covered hands on towels that may be close to flames.

Update: We redid part of the experiment using only Maximus and iLube and made a video. Enjoy!

Genderblind Flies

Here is our first submission by a PhD candidate studying genetics. She has chosen to remain anonymous for professional reasons. Anyone who wants to submit an article to me is more than welcome to do this. Enjoy!

Mate selection is a complex process in humans, as well as in Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly. In order to successfully reproduce, it is vital that one sex be able to identify a receptive member of the other. For flies, courtship rituals allow males to make this determination. This courtship involves physical contact that enables the courting male to assess his intended for repellant pheromone signals (those carried by other males and females that have already been mated), as well as a species-specific song created by wing vibrations, and additional pheromone sampling by oral-genital contact. In other words: a few rounds of fly foreplay. If the fly receiving these advances is successfully seduced, copulation may be attempted.

The Featherstone lab recently published a paper describing an increase in homosexual behavior by male flies. These flies had mutations in a gene they named genderblind. These mutant flies aren’t strictly homosexual. Whereas wild-type flies would always chose to mate with a female fly instead of a male fly when given equal choice between the two, the genderblind flies chose the male fly with the same frequency and intensity as the female fly. These results do not show that the flies preferred to mate with males flies – rather, it shows that the flies were unable to differentiate between male and female flies.

The genderblind mutation led to lower amounts of the genderblind protein being present in regions of the brain that are involved in pheromone sensing and response. They found that the amount of genderblind present inversely correlated with male-male mating attempts.

After a series of experiments, they concluded that the genderblind phenotype (the increase in homosexual behavior) was caused by an altered response to chemosensory stimuli. In particular, the mutant flies seemed unable to detect the normally inhibitory pheromones that male flies carry. They further showed that a drug which mimicked the effects of the genderblind mutation caused wild-type flies to exhibit a similar increase in male-male mating attempts. Restoring wild-type levels of genderblind in mutant flies returned their sexual behavior to that of wild-type. Both of these effects could be seen hours after the treatments, showing that it was the current brain chemistry that was causing the behavior, not a result of their developmental process.

It turned out that the increase in homosexual courtship was ultimately due to a reduction in the brain’s levels of extracellular glutamate. The normal excess of glutamate in the brain acts to desensitize the glutamate receptors, which in then reduces the glutamergic synapse strength. However, in genderblind flies, their reduction in extracellular glutamate led to an overall increase of the synapse strength of the glutamate receptors. This led to flies that overreacted to the chemical signaling in their brains.

Perhaps as a result to their overreaction to chemical stimuli, the flies attempted heterosexual as well as homosexual courtship at a higher frequency than wild-type flies. The genderblind flies also showed an increase in ectopic courtship – attempted copulation with nonsexual body parts, like heads. It may be that genderblind mutants are less sexually inhibited in general, not only in terms of homosexual behavior.

For flies as well as all forms of life, the reproductive drive is among the strongest impulses in nature. It could be that there are entire systems of suppression that have evolved to attempt to narrow the list of possible sexual partners to those which are most likely to produce offspring.

When I first heard about the paper the Featherstone lab had published, I was worried. I had feared that their results could lead to homosexuality being once again thought of as a disease or a lifestyle choice. After all, didn’t the paper show that drug treatment could curb it and return the flies to heterosexual behaviors? And clearly, the effects of the genderblind mutations were defects – they represented a behavior that is only found when something is wrong with the animal. I was waiting to begin hearing the religious right or similar groups start holding this research up as proof that no one is hardwired in their sexual orientation, that homosexuality is unnatural. That instead of being recognized as just another form of variety among the human species, it would be thought of as a treatable condition. With visions of an uncomfortable (if not worse) future, I felt more than just a little fear when I began to read the article.

Thankfully, after reading it, I felt relieved. The experiments they used were very straight-forward, and the results were stated as they were observed. They made no claims that their findings would apply to humans. One of the major reasons that flies are chosen as experimental models is their relative simplicity. Humans have significantly more complex genetics. We also have the undeniable influence of a very well-developed culture. Because of this, I do not believe that any sexual orientation issues will be able to be reduced to a single gene, or even a handful of genes. Our genes represent a starting point for what makes each one of us unique. They can give us predispositions and their own set of influences, but even those do not necessarily dictate the path of our lives.