We are currently making improvements to the Audible site. In an effort to enhance the accessibility experience for our customers, we have created a page to more easily navigate the new experience, available at the web address www.audible.com/access .
Do Gays Have a Choice? Periodical

Do Gays Have a Choice?: Scientific American Mind

Regular Price:$1.95
  • Membership Details:
    • First book free with 30-day trial
    • $14.95/month thereafter for your choice of 1 new book each month
    • Cancel easily anytime
    • Exchange books you don't like
    • All selected books are yours to keep, even if you cancel
  • - or -

Publisher's Summary

In this essay from the pages of Scientific American Mind magazine, "Do Gays Have A Choice?", psychologist Robert Epstein writes that science has a clear and surprising answer.

This article originally appeared in the February/March 2006 issue.

Want more Scientific American?

  • Subscribe for one month or 12 months.
  • Get the latest issue.
  • Check out the complete archive.

    ©2006 Scientific American

  • What Members Say

    Average Customer Rating

    3.6 (48 )
    5 star
     (20)
    4 star
     (8)
    3 star
     (8)
    2 star
     (7)
    1 star
     (5)
    Overall
    3.4 (22 )
    5 star
     (8)
    4 star
     (4)
    3 star
     (3)
    2 star
     (3)
    1 star
     (4)
    Story
    3.8 (23 )
    5 star
     (9)
    4 star
     (7)
    3 star
     (3)
    2 star
     (2)
    1 star
     (2)
    Performance
    Sort by:
    •  
      john lula, GA, United States 01-31-12
      john lula, GA, United States 01-31-12 Member Since 2011
      HELPFUL VOTES
      2
      ratings
      REVIEWS
      6
      1
      FOLLOWERS
      FOLLOWING
      0
      0
      Overall
      Performance
      Story
      "What a waste."
      This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more?

      This gave no usable information. Nothing but the same argument. I think you are gay or you are not. But choice has nothing to do with it.


      2 of 2 people found this review helpful
    •  
      Me & My Girls 01-13-15 Member Since 2016

      Welcome to our group Dakota; welcome to my life Summer, you've made it so much better. Give back to our wounded warriors who gave so much.

      HELPFUL VOTES
      1052
      ratings
      REVIEWS
      2425
      543
      FOLLOWERS
      FOLLOWING
      45
      3
      Overall
      Performance
      Story
      "Excellent Listen"

      This is, at least partially, a refutation of the simplistic argument that the sexuality of individuals can be so easily categorized and divided into gay or straight. The case is made that sexual orientation rather than being an either or situation breaks down on a continuum. While there are some people who fit that; there are many more whose sexual orientation doesn't dovetail so clearly into one camp or another. As someone who has had friends of varied sexuality, bisexual girlfriends and most recently a daughter whose orientation has historically been somewhat eclectic I see things more along the lines of this article. Like most of the Scientific American articles an excellent listen.

      1 of 1 people found this review helpful
    •  
      Cherie Teasdale 04-28-16 Member Since 2015
      HELPFUL VOTES
      10
      ratings
      REVIEWS
      47
      12
      FOLLOWERS
      FOLLOWING
      1
      0
      Overall
      Performance
      Story
      "Non-science"

      This article presents two opposing views in their most benign fashions, theorizing that there could be genetic causation for sexual orientation, but that some people can choose because they are in the middle of the sexual orientation spectrum.

      Presumably the author succeeded - in his own mind- at marrying two unlikely bed fellows, pro-gay and anti-gay advocates. The amicable author concludes with the suggestion that being gay and trying to be straight is like a right handed person eating soup with their left hand. It's possible, just challenging.

      Lacking any valuable or sustained scientific research beyond cursory references to Kinsey, a few general studies, and unexamined anecdotal evidence, the article discredits the periodical in which it is published. While it has all the hallmarks of the professional writing of a respectable contributor, it seems to reflect that at this time, 2006, Scientific American, was publishing a few too many shallow articles for broader readership, but with little original or substantive thought.

      0 of 0 people found this review helpful

    Report Inappropriate Content

    If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.

    Cancel

    Thank you.

    Your report has been received. It will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.