Jablonka (2012) Behavioral epigenetics in ecological context. Behavioral Ecology. First published online: July 25.
Excerpt: “Behaviors that are mediated by early, socially-mediated learning, which develop during sensitive periods, and that have long-term consequences are likely to have distinct epigenetic correlates. Members of different populations of the same species that differ in socially-mediated behaviors such as their … their sexual (e.g., homosexual) behavior, or their stable food preferences, are likely to have epigenetic correlates…”
See for example: Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.
My comment: I have detailed epigenetic cause, not epigenetic correlates of genetically predisposed sexual orientation.
LeVay (2011) “James Kohl, an independent researcher who also markets “human pheromones” to the general public, believes that pheromones may have a primary influence in setting up a person’s basic sexual orientation. Other, more consciously perceived aspects of attractiveness, such as facial appearance, are attached to a person’s basic orientation through a process of association during early postnatal life, according to Kohl. 35”
This model is attractive in that it solves the “binding problem” of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as an arbitrary collage of male and female characteristics. If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions.”
My comment: Jablonka alludes to epigenetic correlates when I have modeled epigenetic cause, which has been addressed by LeVay in his book on the development of sexual preferences. Therefore, when the question arises Can Epigenetics Explain Homosexuality? as it recently did, can I simply say that the question has been asked and answered in a series of my published works (with and without co-authors)? How might others become better informed about the answer to such questions? Are they not reading my published works, or simply ignoring them while they wait for a consensus to be reached so that they can claim they always believed that epigenetics explained homosexuality in the same way epigenetics explains heterosexuality. Does anyone still think there should be one model that explains heterosexual preferences and food preferences but another that explains homosexual preferences?