1993-1994 The Sexual Brainby Simon LeVay (Paperback - Jul 25 1994)
The Sexual Brain
The Sexual Brain, published in 1993, was LeVay's first book. It discussed brain mechanisms involved in sexual behavior and feelings.
LeVay wrote in the introduction that his INAH3 study was his only publication on sex to that date, and that most of his previous research had been on the visual areas of the cerebral cortex. LeVay explained the circumstances that led to his taking an interest in sexuality: "As a teenager and young adult I accepted the Freudian line [on sexual orientation], according to which a young child's relations with his or her parents play a decisive role...it seemed to be borne out in my own family experience: I remembered my mother as having been very close and possessive, and my father as distant, even hostile...when I came to read Freud I was swept away by his eloquence and the sheer audacity of his theories."
LeVay added, however, "Later...I began to have serious doubts. First, as I got to know large numbers of gay men and lesbian women, it became harder and harder to see them, or myself, as the products of defective parenting; we just seemed too normal. Second, as I became trained in the methods of science I became more and more skeptical that there was anything scientific about Freud's ideas, even though he repeatedly asserted that they were so. And finally, discoveries were being made in the area of sexual biology that were pointing in all kinds of new and exciting directions; Freudianism, on the other hand, seemed to have become a fossilized immovable dogma."[6]
In 1991, LeVay published "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" in Science. This article reported a difference in average size between the third Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH3) in the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men: INAH3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. The INAH3 size of homosexual men was the same as that of women. LeVay wrote that "This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate." LeVay added, "The existence of 'exceptions' in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones, hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size. It is also possible, however, that these exceptions are due to technical shortcomings or to misassignment of subjects to their subject groups."[1]
LeVay's finding was widely reported in the media.[2] LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior."[3] Some critics of LeVay questioned the accuracy and appropriateness of his measurements, saying that the structures are difficult to see in tissue slices and that he measured in volume rather than cell count.[4] Nancy Ordover wrote in her 2003 book American Eugenics that LeVay has been criticized for "his small sample size and for compiling inadequate sexual histories."[5]
Queer Science, published in 1996, was a survey of sexual orientation research. It discussed the work of pioneering sexologists such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld, Sigmund Freud and his followers, behaviorism, and LeVay's own research on INAH3 and its possible implications.
2005 Becker JB, Arnold AP, Berkley KJ, Blaustein JD, Eckel LA, Hampson E, Herman JP, Marts S, Sadee W, Steiner M, Taylor J, Young E 2005 Strategies and methods for research on sex differences in brain and behavior. Endocrinology 146:1650–1673[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Concern about ne’er do well sons is ancient. In a quoteattributed to Socrates by Plato, Socrates laments, "The childrennow live in luxury . . . and love chatterinstead of exercise." Leonard Sax, a family physician and researchpsychologist, continues this tradition in Boys Adrift, arguingthat there is a growing epidemic of unmotivated boys and underachievingyoung men. Five factors are identified to account for this proposeddecline: (1) feminization of education; (2) video games; (3)increased prescription of psychotropic medications that affectthe motivational systems of the brain; (4) exposure to endocrinedisrupters; and (5) lack of heroic role models.
Mark Liberman, a professor of linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania, has questioned on his blog, Language Log, some of the claims which Dr. Sax has made in the past, particularly on Dr. Sax's positions regarding sex differences in hearing and vision. Dr. Sax has replied directly to Professor Liberman (via snail mail). Having received no response from Professor Liberman, Dr. Sax has agreed to post these letters online.
在許多文化中，『蛋』象徵性的影響力是一個橢圓。世界這顆蛋靠蛋底的地方較厚，所以能承載我們，蛋尖的部分較薄，彷彿直入雲霄。在中世紀的繪畫和教堂的牆上，復活的基督坐在一個屬天的卵形物中。復活節時，我們在蛋上彩繪，慶祝復活。蛋裡有生命，而呈杯形、卵形的手掌也是推動搖籃的手。印度神祇象頭神和濕婆不論是坐或舞，背後都有火舌繚繞的卵形光圈。喬治亞‧歐姬芙（Georgia O Cheeffe）在她所繪的外陰之花中，花瓣層層相疊，她同樣也運用蛋的意象，彷彿女人的外陰足以一語道破女人的生殖力。
精子則大異其趣。精子比卵子小；只有卵子體積的一小部分，然而，由於它的設計就是為了能醒目招搖，公共消費，精子便具備易於技術顯像的特質。三百年前，當安東‧凡‧魯文霍克（Anton van Leeuwenhoek）發明顯微鏡後，他所做的第一件事，就是在玻璃片上抹上一層人體精液取樣，並將它置於他的魔術鏡頭下。精子放大來看的確是洋洋大觀，既雄壯威武，又無憂無慮，像是長著蝌蚪尾巴的淚珠，橫衝直撞，迴旋打轉，猛甩尾巴，向四面八方飛奔而去，卻又不知何去何從，它們活生生地證明我們最原始的過去是一條鞭毛蟲。就顯微鏡下光怪陸離的奇遇這點來說，一抹精液的表現遠勝於較常為學術界所使用的一滴池塘浮垢。
如果有人要蒐羅生殖力崇拜的案例的話，德洛契亞可是箇中楷模。這是她第三次捐贈卵子。念研究所時，她捐過兩次，每次都能有二十九顆左右的大豐收。現在她又來了，兩千五百美元的酬勞是部分原因。還有其他原因：她不介意，甚至可說是樂此不疲。她和她先生至今膝下猶虛，但她告訴我她喜歡當媽媽。她想到她的種成了別人快樂的泉源，就樂不可支。她並不覺得她的卵子是她的專利。她迷供知識分子讀的那種科幻小說，她告訴我羅伯‧A‧海瀾（Robert A. Heinlein）曾寫道：「『你的基因不屬於你，』他說，『它們屬於全人類。』我深信不疑。我的卵、我的基因，它們甚至不能算是我，我不過是與人分享。就像捐血一樣。」
發表文章
