I know of no studies that show that SSA men or women are disproportionately genius.

I do know that if we define “genius” as being those who contribute to society in a world-changing way, history does have a disproportionate number whose primary sexual attraction was to the same sex. Some of History’s Biggest Names.

But I don’t think we can assume that this is necessarily due to increased IQ. It may simply be that these individuals were less encumbered with spouse and children to provide for than were an equally bright heterosexual. It’s hard to know from our vantage point.

OK, thanks for the additional prodding. I’m speaking of the attachment that develops maternally for a little girl to her mother from early months ’til about the age of 2-3. If that is broken in some manner, I think (just me) that can be a major contributing factor for SSA development. I know you’ve cited studies that dispel that theory, but I’m not convinced they apply to women … just men (and fathers).

Am I wrong? Please disabuse me of my false notions, if so. I see this issue, along with sexual abuse, as pretty huge factors in my SSA.

I also have a theory that SSA men and women are at the high end of IQ … most being 130+. So, if this were true, most boys and girls suffering from attachment disruption when young wouldn’t respond in the same way (being around 100 IQ) as those with significantly higher IQ. The brain processes that disruption (attachment, sex abuse, etc.) in far, far different ways.

Just a thought.

Warren said: ” but I think the differences between men and women are driven to some degree by the different investments in reproduction as well as the social expectations of women”

As Timothy said there is very little data regarding women with SSA. I have a theoretical hypothesis that many women are ‘bi’ … many more women than men. I, also, think that the ‘attachment disruption’ theory does fit women far more than men.

Questions, questions, questions: does the drive to want a child (and be protected) override a woman’s concern about attraction (in that way) to a man? Have there been far more lesbians throughout the centuries than what we think, but women are better at hiding it? Did many lesbians enter convents when there were no other occupation choices and hide out there? Because of the choices offered to women now to chart their own courses without the necessity of men … does this explain the heightened awareness and the ‘coming out’ of many lesbians in the last year or two?

I think Janelle Hallman’s book, The Heart of Female Same Sex Attraction is still the best work of lesbianism that I’ve read incorporating some varied research footnotes. Being a same-sex attracted woman, I find that there is some common ground with SSA men, but often we’re a world apart in many, many ways. I guess if I had more of a maternal drive, I could have hid out in a marriage (with my SSA) and masked my sexual responses and did what lots of women did throughout history … do what was expected of us.

As Timothy said there is very little data regarding women with SSA. I have a theoretical hypothesis that many women are ‘bi’ … many more women than men. I, also, think that the ‘attachment disruption’ theory does fit women far more than men.

Questions, questions, questions: does the drive to want a child (and be protected) override a woman’s concern about attraction (in that way) to a man? Have there been far more lesbians throughout the centuries than what we think, but women are better at hiding it? Did many lesbians enter convents when there were no other occupation choices and hide out there? Because of the choices offered to women now to chart their own courses without the necessity of men … does this explain the heightened awareness and the ‘coming out’ of many lesbians in the last year or two?

I think Janelle Hallman’s book, The Heart of Female Same Sex Attraction is still the best work of lesbianism that I’ve read incorporating some varied research footnotes. Being a same-sex attracted woman, I find that there is some common ground with SSA men, but often we’re a world apart in many, many ways. I guess if I had more of a maternal drive, I could have hid out in a marriage (with my SSA) and masked my sexual responses and did what lots of women did throughout history … do what was expected of us.

Because biologically women are not the ‘active’ partner (so-to-speak) in the conjugal act, we often participate in sex without any physical enjoyment. Men cannot participate in the conjugal act without experiencing sexual pleasure.

It has been my experience as a woman that attraction to other women is principally an emotional drive coupled with a sexual attraction that can diminish over time, but the emotional affectivity (redundant ?) remains.

Looking back on my own experience – and the fact that my partner and I still live each other just as much now as when we married… I think you’re right, Teresa.

I really hate being a stereotype. But yes, even when I had a masculine body, my whole sexual response was so feminine it was a cliche, wasn’t it?

*SIGH* I hate it when that happens.

but I think the differences between men and women are driven to some degree by the different investments in reproduction as well as the social expectations of women

Totally agree wbout this one