Homosexuality in the Forgotten Realms

[Shemeska]

Okay. Here are some good ones from a paper I wrote. There is some variance between studies, but most of them cite numbers ranging from 10-25%. Personally, I think the numbers are closer to 10-15% for those who are exclusively homosexual.

Hmm. Granted that this isn't an area of biology I really follow closely, IIRC most of the studies I'm aware of that have looked at the approach from a biological perspective, as opposed to a social one, have typically reported numbers ranging from 3-4% at the low end, and 5-7% at the high end for the human population as a whole, with the percentage among men being twice that of women.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

To get back to the Question:

I can't remember any 'detailed' Brokeback Mountain level of Homosexuality.

I believe the House of Serpents Trilogy had some hints of Homo, Bi, Heterosexuality. But the book was focused on Yuan-Ti.

The books of the Drow War hinted as Homosexuality among Priestesses (although many dealt with captured preistesses, so it was more about degredation, control, & humiliation than actual sexualtiy).

The newest FR Book in Empyrean Odyssey Trilogy has the main character reflect on Same-Sex Relationships she had in the past (as we are dealing with a Alu-Fiend, I'd call it more a do whatever I need to get what I want).

FR is very much a PG-13 Setting. Any serious discussion of more mature topics will be glossed over, simplified, or very much off the record.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

Hmm. Granted that this isn't an area of biology I really follow closely, IIRC most of the studies I'm aware of that have looked at the approach from a biological perspective, as opposed to a social one, have typically reported numbers ranging from 3-4% at the low end, and 5-7% at the high end for the human population as a whole, with the percentage among men being twice that of women.

Curious. Aside from simply asking someone their orientation or taking a survey, what possible metric could be employed to assay such a quality in populations?

SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphism studies)? Gene migration isn't exactly helpful, since there is no such thing as a gay gene. If there is a genetic component whatever, that behavior likely is a polygenic trait dependent on a complex of gene products.

EDIT: I'm not trying to call you out and demand sources here, but admit to being most curious as to research methods that may appear in a study making these claims.

 

[Rabelais]

Sometimes it's the strangest threads that have legs. 4+ page thread about something that was briefly covered by the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Not necessarily a criticism, but merely an observation.

 

[Shemeska]

Curious. Aside from simply asking someone their orientation or taking a survey, what possible metric could be employed to assay such a quality in populations?

Most of the studies that have been published in more hard science sources, as opposed to sociology/social science journals and books show a pretty large difference in numbers. It's possibly just what questions are being asked, what pooled population they're each looking at, or even what they're choosing to report for purposes of pushing a point. We can only speculate.

Five minutes on Pubmed and I snagged the following two for examples:

One study (Mercer CH, et al. Women who report having sex with women: British national probability data on prevalence, sexual behaviors, and health outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2007 Jun;97(6):1126-33. Epub 2007 Apr 26.) reported a 4.9% rate of homosexual experiences in the lifetime of the women in the study population (that's experiences, not necessarily orientation or self-identified orientation) with half of that number ~5% reporting experience with both genders. A far cry from 10-15% certainly.

Another study (Aaron DJ, et al. Estimating the lesbian population: a capture-recapture approach. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Mar;57(3):207-9.) reported a 1.87% rate, which is the lowest number I've seen.

I'd look at the aims of who is reporting any particular number, what they were asking, how they were asking it, how solid their science and statistics were, if their tested population was representative of the overall population, and what goals they might have in the numbers.

Gene migration isn't exactly helpful, since there is no such thing as a gay gene. If there is a genetic component whatever, that behavior likely is a polygenic trait dependent on a complex of gene products.

There are some suggestions of a genetic component (at least for men), but since the Hamer work on the topic I think most of the evidence weighs massively against it being as simple as that. That said, recent work is strongly suggestive of it being a physical thing, with persuasive evidence for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

I'd look at the aims of who is reporting any particular number, what they were asking, how they were asking it, how solid their science and statistics were, if their tested population was representative of the overall population, and what goals they might have in the numbers.

Exactly my concern.

but since the Hamer work on the topic I think most of the evidence weighs massively against it being as simple as that. That said, recent work is strongly suggestive of it being a physical thing, with persuasive evidence for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).

No doubt. What is this recent persuasive evidence?

EDIT: The Mercer article appears credible enough from the abstract ... I can't download the article but the sample size is n=6399 women and they rely on interviews and "computer-assisted" interviews. British National population data certianly has the ring of decent sounding science. The Aaron article uses a population n=2185 and is localized to Allegheny, PA. They also rely on interviews. Hmm.

As to the quality of their science, it is difficult to judge without the articles in front of me. Not to be snobby, but neither of these articles were published in Nature or Cell or Science or JAMA or even PNAS here (and I'm sure we both know how PNAS does business).

So far ... not terribly compelling. Sociologists can probably interview and run the stats with as much ability as a biologist. My point here is that, just because a paper is written from "a biological perspective," that doesn't give it any more credibility if they are doing the exact same experiments as the sociologists ... namely interviewing people and collecting statistical data. A lot of laypeople will automatically credit hard science research > soft without looking any further ... including me a lot of the time.

EDIT: and then you go and post a PNAS article. that's totally funny!!! for the non-biologists here: PNAS has a "back-door" through which non-peer reviewed studies can be published if they are sponsored by a member of the special club. a large number of this journal's articles are published this way, and they do not all stand up to the scrutiny of repeatability.

anyway, thanks for indulging me, Shemaska. i'll have to read those other articles and see what i think. whether i find them "persuasive" or not, they don't speak to frequency in populations. in the end, whether the stats are 5% or 15%, any value within this range is impressive and significant, whatever that true value may be. even 5 people out of every 100 is a lot! alas, i must away from the computer for a while, as much fun as this is!!!

I'm more trusting of peer reviewed research suffice to say.

Yup. Me too! That's what I was getting at above in citing my preferences for certain reputable scientific journals. Okay ... must sleep.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Exactly my concern.

Indeed. And because it's such a hot-button issue, my fear is--at least in the current political climate and culture--that it's impossible to get accurate numbers, because any and every survey on the topic is going to be at least slightly influenced by an agenda (be it pro- or anti-).

I imagine that the best thing one could do would be to select a number of mostly reliable sources, and then in turn average those results, to get anything close to a realistic percentage.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Indeed. And because it's such a hot-button issue, my fear is--at least in the current political climate and culture

I'm not sure that there's ever been a time that we know it hasn't been controversial. Certainly during the last few hundred years, it always has been, and when homosexuality's been mentioned prior to that, it's in snippets that can be interpreted all sorts of ways -- and are.

So I think we gotta go with what we've got, since I don't know that it'll ever not be a hot button issue to some people (at least enough to cast doubt on any given survey).

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not sure that there's ever been a time that we know it hasn't been controversial. Certainly during the last few hundred years, it always has been, and when homosexuality's been mentioned prior to that, it's in snippets that can be interpreted all sorts of ways -- and are.

So I think we gotta go with what we've got, since I don't know that it'll ever not be a hot button issue to some people (at least enough to cast doubt on any given survey).

Oh, I agree. I phrased that poorly. I didn't mean "current political climate" as in "right now," so much as I meant "in modern American society."

My bad.

 

[Shemeska]

Exactly my concern.

I'm more trusting of peer reviewed research suffice to say.

No doubt. What is this recent persuasive evidence?

Here are three papers that touch upon the topic. That's just a quick look at the literature, and there have been other studies that aren't immediately popping up in the search terms I'm using. If you're interested, there's a lot out there.

Muscarella F, Elias VA, Szuchman LT. Brain differentiation and preferred partner characteristics in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Aug;25(4):297-301.

Berglund H, Lindstrom P, Savic I. Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 23;103(21):8269-74. Epub 2006 May 16. Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jul 18;103(29):11098.

Swaab DF. Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2004 Dec;19(6):301-12. Review.

Judge the science as you will. It's a complex area, and a lot more study (and replication most importantly) needs to be done.

Edit: And we're probably going too off topic now. My apologies.