Physical size and sexual orientation: Analysis of the Chinese health and family life survey

Carving the Biodevelopment of Same-Sex Sexual Orientation at Its Joints

Sexual orientation is a core aspect of human experience and understanding its development is fundamental to psychology as a scientific discipline. Biological perspectives have played an important role in uncovering the processes that contribute to sexual orientation development. Research in this field has relied on a variety of populations, including community, clinical, and cross-cultural samples, and has commonly focused on female gynephilia (i.e., female sexual attraction to adult females) and male androphilia (i.e., male sexual attraction to adult males). Genetic, hormonal, and immunological processes all appear to influence sexual orientation. Consistent with biological perspectives, there are sexual orientation differences in brain development and evidence indicates that similar biological influences apply across cultures. An outstanding question in the field is whether the hypothesized biological influences are all part of the same process or represent different developmental pathways leading to same-sex sexual orientation. Some studies indicate that same-sex sexually oriented people can be divided into subgroups who likely experienced different biological influences. Consideration of gender expression in addition to sexual orientation might help delineate such subgroups. Thus, future research on the possible existence of such subgroups could prove to be valuable for uncovering the biological development of sexual orientation. Recommendations for such future research are discussed.

Pubertal Stress and Nutrition and their Association with Sexual Orientation and Height in the Add Health Data

A number of studies have indicated that gay men tend to be shorter, on average, than heterosexual men. Less evidence exists that lesbian women are taller, on average, than heterosexual women. The most popular explanation of the association between sexual orientation and height involves prenatal factors, such that, for example, gay men may have been exposed to lower than typical androgens during fetal development, which impacts their height and sexual orientation as adults. An alternative explanation involves stress, given that stress has been associated with sexual minority identification and with lower height. Another alternative explanation involves nutrition, although its relationship is less clear with sexual minority identification. Using the Add Health data, which is a large, nationally representative and longitudinal sample of American adolescents (n = 14,786), we tested a mediation model, such that sexual orientation → pubertal stress/nutrition → height. Within men, we found that gay men (n = 126) were shorter, on average, than heterosexual men (n = 6412). None of the 24 pubertal stress-related and 15 pubertal nutrition-related variables assessed in the Add Health data mediated the relationship between sexual orientation and height in men. Within women, lesbians (n = 75) did not differ significantly in stature compared to heterosexual women (n = 6267). Thus, prenatal mechanisms (e.g., hormones, maternal immune response) are likely better candidates for explaining the height difference between gay men and heterosexual men.

Sexual Orientation, Objective Height, and Self-Reported Height

Studies that have used mostly self-reported height have found that androphilic men and women are shorter than gynephilic men and women, respectively. This study examined whether an objective height difference exists or whether a psychosocial account (e.g., distortion of self-reports) may explain these putative height differences. A total of 863 participants, recruited at a Canadian university, the surrounding region, and through lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) events across Canada, self-reported their height and had their height measured. Androphilic men were shorter, on average, than gynephilic men. There was no objective height difference between gynephilic, ambiphilic, and androphilic women. Self-reported height, statistically controlling for objective height, was not related to sexual orientation. These findings are the first to show an objective height difference between androphilic and gynephilic men. Also, the findings suggest that previous studies using self-reported height found part of a true objective height difference between androphilic and gynephilic men. These findings have implications for existing biological theories of men's sexual orientation development.

Prevalence of and disparities in HIV-related sexual risk behaviours among Chinese youth in relation to sexual orientation: a cross-sectional study

Background: The aim of this study was to calculate the prevalence rate of HIV-related sexual risk behaviours (HSRB) among Chinese youth and determine whether there was an association between sexual orientation and HSRB. Methods: This study used a nationally representative survey of youth aged 15-24 years in China. Population numbers, prevalence, and proportions were calculated where appropriate. χ2 tests were used to determine the difference within categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted odd ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The rate of any HSRB among sexually active youth was 79.43%, and the most common HSRB was lack of condom use during the first sexual experience (66.02%). After adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic variables (sex, age, residence, living with parents or not, father's education and annual family income), non-heterosexual orientation was found to significantly increase the odds of HSRB (AOR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.16-5.05). Conclusions: Non-heterosexual youth are at a higher risk of partaking in HSRB. The high prevalence of HSRB indicates the insufficiency of sex education for Chinese youth, especially for non-heterosexual youth. Greater efforts should be made to increase reproductive and sexual health services for Chinese youth.

Facial Structure Predicts Sexual Orientation in Both Men and Women

Biological models have typically framed sexual orientation in terms of effects of variation in fetal androgen signaling on sexual differentiation, although other biological models exist. Despite marked sex differences in facial structure, the relationship between sexual orientation and facial structure is understudied. A total of 52 lesbian women, 134 heterosexual women, 77 gay men, and 127 heterosexual men were recruited at a Canadian campus and various Canadian Pride and sexuality events. We found that facial structure differed depending on sexual orientation; substantial variation in sexual orientation was predicted using facial metrics computed by a facial modelling program from photographs of White faces. At the univariate level, lesbian and heterosexual women differed in 17 facial features (out of 63) and four were unique multivariate predictors in logistic regression. Gay and heterosexual men differed in 11 facial features at the univariate level, of which three were unique multivariate predictors. Some, but not all, of the facial metrics differed between the sexes. Lesbian women had noses that were more turned up (also more turned up in heterosexual men), mouths that were more puckered, smaller foreheads, and marginally more masculine face shapes (also in heterosexual men) than heterosexual women. Gay men had more convex cheeks, shorter noses (also in heterosexual women), and foreheads that were more tilted back relative to heterosexual men. Principal components analysis and discriminant functions analysis generally corroborated these results. The mechanisms underlying variation in craniofacial structure--both related and unrelated to sexual differentiation--may thus be important in understanding the development of sexual orientation.

Asexuality: what it is and why it matters

In this review article, human asexuality, a relatively understudied phenomenon, is discussed. Specifically, definitions and conceptualizations of asexuality (e.g., is it a unique category of sexual orientation?), biological and historical contexts, identity issues, discrimination against asexual people relative to other minorities, origins, and variations, including gender differences, are reviewed. Whether asexuality should be construed as a disorder is also discussed. The study of asexuality allows for a better understanding of an underrecognized sexual minority but also affords a unique opportunity to examine and better understand human sexuality.