Sex Differences in Sexual Arousal and Finger Length Ratio

Holmes, Luke; Watts-Overall, Tuesday M.; Slettevold, Erlend; Gruia, Dragos C.; Rieger, Gerulf

doi:10.1080/00224499.2021.1874262

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As aforementioned, this sex difference in sexual arousal has been well established (Chivers et al, 2004;Holmes et al, 2021;Rieger et al, 2015;Watts et al, 2018c). Yet, this sex difference only applies on average and there are exceptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Since identical twins are comparable to non-twins in their sexual arousal patterns, and in the interest of maximizing statistical power in the present sample, we decided to include these individuals in the analyses. 169 of the 199 participants have been reported on previously in a publication on sex differences in arousal and 2D:4D (Holmes et al, 2021). Due to some participants opting out of the genital arousal component, others not responding to our messages to provide additional data (some participants were invited to provide 2D:4D data only after their original visit to the laboratory), and pupil data loss because of problems with the apparatus, genital arousal data were available for 184 women, pupil dilation data for 175 women, and 2D:4D data for 182 women.…”

Section: Target Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sexual Orientation, Sexual Arousal, and Finger Length Ratios in Women

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general, women show physiological sexual arousal to both sexes. However, compared with heterosexual women, homosexual women are more aroused to their preferred sex, a pattern typically found in men. We hypothesized that homosexual women’s male-typical arousal is due to their sex-atypical masculinization during prenatal development. We measured the sexual responses of 199 women (including 67 homosexual women) via their genital arousal and pupil dilation to female and male sexual stimuli. Our main marker of masculinization was the ratio of the index to ring finger, which we expected to be lower (a masculine pattern) in homosexual women due to increased levels of prenatal androgens. We further measured observer- and self-ratings of psychological masculinity–femininity as possible proxies of prenatal androgenization. Homosexual women responded more strongly to female stimuli than male stimuli and therefore had more male-typical sexual responses than heterosexual women. However, they did not have more male-typical digit ratios, even though this difference became stronger if analyses were restricted to white participants. Still, variation in women's digit ratios did not account for the link between their sexual orientation and their male-typical sexual responses. Furthermore, homosexual women reported and displayed more masculinity than heterosexual women, but their masculinity was not associated with their male-typical sexual arousal. Thus, women’s sexual and behavioral traits, and potential anatomical traits, are possibly masculinized at different stages of gestation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Target Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%