“Existing cross-sectional research suggests associations between physical and sexual abuse in childhood and same-sex sexual orientation in adulthood. This study prospectively examined whether abuse and/or neglect in childhood were associated with increased likelihood of same-sex partnerships in adulthood. The sample included physically abused (N = 85), sexually abused (N = 72), and neglected (N = 429) children (ages 0–11) with documented cases during 1967–1971 who were matched with non-maltreated children (N = 415) and followed into adulthood. At approximately age 40, participants (483 women and 461 men) were asked about romantic cohabitation and sexual partners, in the context of in-person interviews covering a range of topics. Group (abuse/neglect versus control) differences were assessed with cross-tabulations and logistic regression. A total of 8% of the overall sample reported any same-sex relationship (cohabitation or sexual partners). Childhood physical abuse and neglect were not significantly associated with same-sex cohabitation or sexual partners. Individuals with documented histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report ever having had same-sex sexual partners (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.16–6.80, p ≤ .05); however, only men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report same-sex sexual partners (OR = 6.75, 95% CI = 1.53–29.86, p ≤ .01). These prospective findings provide tentative evidence of a link between childhood sexual abuse and same-sex sexual partnerships among men, although further research is needed to explore this relationship and to examine potential underlying mechanisms.”
I disagree with the sampling (inc. ambiguous “neglect”) but I haven’t seen the datasheets so I can’t be sure.
The first p-value is proof enough for a causative link to be made. 0.05 is the standard level.
The second is gold, 0.01 is definitive, as close to a certainty as social science psychology (attraction study) gets.
I highlighted male because it is interestingly a male-only connection. This is consistent with a pathogenic explanation of male homosexuality switching the response patterns of the hypothalamus from normal, reversed (female as in-utero hormone exposure instead). HBD chick here and Jayman here. Wouldn’t it be ironic if after all this complaining they weren’t born that way?
I see this probable explanation in a dispassionate, empirical way. At worst, I feel a small amount of pity for the suffering caused by this. However, if true, the gay male community should be frightened of a possible vaccine being developed. Most of the world would use one.
If you think there is no precedent for an invasive pathogen creating an immune response that changes hypothalamic function: here and here, and here’s a psychologist discussing the necessity of the brain segment for sexual attraction. Think for yourself.