Causes and Influences of Abnormal Sexual Orientation
Friday, November 14th, 2008 | Essays | 3 Comments
Posing the question of “what causes homosexuality” is dangerous. It makes the implication that homosexuality is a disorder which needs to be explained and investigated. Afterall, the question of what causes heterosexuality is not nearly such a popular and controversial topic; it’s something to be studied in quiet by a scant few psychologists and biologists.
The answer to this question is just as hazardous. If genetic influences can be proven, it may spark a movement towards eugenics to “stamp out” homosexuality from the population. Research towards ways to detect homosexuality in embryos may begin and parents may be given the option to terminate fetuses if they are found likely to develop into homosexuals.
But many people want to know what causes homosexuality in order to solve a number of problems, such as legal rights and societal acceptance. For these reasons, many hope that the answer is that homosexuality is biological and natural. This is making the false assumption that being an inborn, uncontrollable trait entitles one to legal rights such as being a protected minority. While a susceptibility to alcoholism is congenital, do active alcoholics deserve to be protected from discrimination, such as an employer refusing to hire someone who cannot control their drinking? Additionally, discovering a biological influence may not affect society’s acceptance of homosexuality. Since the Bible’s word will not change depending on the cause, religious views towards sexuality will remain stiff.
The reason the question should be asked is not to propose ways to “cure” homosexuals or bisexuals or to advance GLBT causes, but to better understand ourselves. People will take the evidence however fits their personal agenda, but the best use of it is as an addition to the collective human knowledge of ourselves and our world. (Stein 1997).
There appears to be several possibilities for causes and influences of sexual orientation, some with more supporting data than others. There are four main theories that will be discussed. The first one, genetics, that there is an inheritable and biological component for sexual orientation and that it’s an alteration in or presence of the gene or genes that causes a change in sexual preference from the norm. Next, pre-natal influences will be examined. During fetal development, an embryo is flooded with hormones and chemicals that determine its gender and may also influence sexual preference. Also examined will be environmental factors. It’s possible that parents, peers, siblings, and the home environment may affect sexual preference. Finally will be addressed the idea that none of these are influences and that homosexuality and bisexuality are purely the result of a choice made by the individual.
One should also keep in mind, though, that there may not be one single answer. One would be hard-pressed to find a geneticist or psychologist who would rule out all other evidence once a correlation between either genes or environment and homosexuality is established. It’s entirely possible that orientation could be caused by a genetic vulnerability which must be taken advantage of by environment in early childhood. Or it could indeed only be influenced only by genes and once an individual has the “gay gene,” they will turn out so no matter how they are raised. We can only attempt to draw conclusions once the evidence has been presented.
Genetic and/or Pre-Natal
It has been known that a certain group of cells in the human brain called INAH3 (“third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus”) exhibits sexual dimorphism. In fact, it is generally three times larger in males than females. When studying the brains of 19 homosexual males, 16 heterosexual males, and 6 females of unknown sexual orientation, the researcher Simon LeVey (1994) has come to that very conclusion. The INAH3 region was on average over twice as large in the males as in the females. But he also noted something else—that the region was also between two and three times larger in the straight men than in the gay men and that the gay men’s structure was similar in size to the women’s. Even more interestingly, in some gay men, the structure was completely absent.
A concern of this study is the presence of other variables that may have affected the size of this area in the hypothalamus. All of the gay males who were examined had died of AIDS (as did six of the heterosexual males). It could be proposed that the AIDS virus had damaged the INAH3. But to counter this, the INAH3 of straight males who died of AIDS compared to that of straight males who died of other causes has shown no significant difference. Also, after the study, LeVey (1994) obtained the brain of a gay male who died of non-AIDS causes and dissected it blind along with specimens from heterosexual males. He found that the volume of the INAH3 in the gay male was less than half that of the straight males, thus further concluding that AIDS is not a factor affecting the size of the INAH3.
In a study by L. S. Allen and R. A. Gorski (1992), the anterior commissure (AC) of 90 brains (30 from each category: male homosexual, male heterosexual, and female heterosexual) were examined for volume. It was found that (when adjusted for overall brain weight) homosexual males’ AC size was nearly identical to that of heterosexual females, which were both greater than that of heterosexual males.
While the anterior commissure is not proven to affect gender or sexual orientation themselves (in fact, the AC connects the two temporal lobes, contains fibers from the olfactory tracts, and is part of the neospinothalamic tract for pain), the AC responds to male hormones called androgens. One could postulate that a smaller AC in a male would mean that androgens affect that person similarly to a typical female. The reason for a larger AC is more likely to be an additional result of biological or pre-natal conditions that produce homosexuality. The research, though, does not necessarily mean that the AC is the cause of orientation, it may well be a side-effect as well, but considering its function, more research could find this answer definitively (Allen & Gorski, 1982).
It is clear that these brain structure differences are biological, but it is less certain if they were caused by the genes of the individuals or by hormones or chemicals during development. Various parts of the brain have been shown to be influenced by either of these, but no research has been done on what affects the size of the INAH3 region and the anterior commissure. Hopefully, further research will one day yield an explanation.
D.H. Hamer (1994) did a study comparing the genes of gay brothers to each other. He and his colleagues found the genetic region called Xq28 notable. Thirty-three of the pairs of homosexual brothers studied shared the same genetic marker in this region, whereas only seven did not. As a control, a study of 314 randomly selected pairs of brothers was done to examine the chance of sharing this marker. As Hamer (1994) had predicted, the chance was about 50%. A sample size of forty is not especially excellent, but the results of this research indicate a strong possibility for correlation between sexual orientation and a gene or genes in this region. Further research should be done using a larger sample size and to isolate the genes specifically as this region contains hundreds.
J. M. Bailey and his colleagues (1993) collected data on female twins where one of the pair was homosexual. It was found that 34 (48%) of 71 monozygotic co-twins, six (16%) of 37 dizygotic co-twins, and two (6%) of 35 adoptive sisters were homosexual. Such a high rate of concordant orientation between twins with identical genetic make-up and rates in dizygotic twins that are above the control (the adoptive sisters) seems to show that genes do indeed have a strong affect on orientation. There is only the problem of the environment that these twins were raised in—they were identical as well (or as near to identical as you could generally find in a family). The data on adoptive sisters serves to compare for this reason. Those sisters do not share genetic make-up, but they do share environment. The low rates of concordant orientation shows a minimal level of environment’s influence on orientation.
Sexual orientation can be an extremely sensitive subject and just asking someone what their preferences are can result in being lied to. It’s possible that the heterosexual twins are outright lying or are in denial or homosexual twins don’t want to admit their sexual orientation, and genes are more important to orientation than this study shows. It is also possible that some of the homosexual twins are not exclusively homosexual or are making this judgement based on experimentation or a fear that they are, while they are actually heterosexual or bisexual.
If we were to assume that none of this data is incorrect, it is once again a question of if this is caused by genetic or pre-natal factors. The twins have identical genes, but were also in an identical environment during fetal development and given identical levels of hormones. Unfortunately, there is no way to know which caused the orientation in these twins. A study could be proposed using twins where one was removed and transplanted into a different mother before much development occurred, but such subjects would be extraordinarily difficult to find and transplanting fetuses specifically for this study would be extremely costly, take a lot of time, and would may be considered unethical. So unfortunately, as far as this study goes, it may be impossible to learn which of these biological influences was the culprit.
According to R. Blanchard (2002), each older brother that a male has increases his chance of being homosexual by about 33%. There is no effect, though, related to older sisters or any effect on being lesbian. The effect here is not due to the environment, Blanchard explains, as it may first appear, but due to the biological effects of pregnancy on the mother’s womb. After the birth of each male, the mother’s immunisation to the H-Y antigen increases. Due to this immunity, the H-Y antigen’s effects on sexual differentiation decreases, so later sons may develop more feminine brain characteristics.
Social and Environmental
Unfortunately, research done where post-natal environment was shared between subjects, but genetic material was not, is more difficult to come by due to the comparatively rare situation of a child adopted as a baby multiplied by the rarity of either the adopted child or a sibling of theirs to be homosexual. Many of the theories about environmental effects on homosexuality have little scientific research backing them.
It was Sigmund Freud’s belief that homosexuality was caused by men being fixated on their mothers. In his wake, a number of different psychologists have proposed similar theories on male homosexuality based around an uncaring or absent father or an over-dependance on the mother. A severe problem with this theory is the focus only on male homosexuality and the stereotyping of them as feminine. We know today that the belief that male homosexuals portray a female role is false–they may exhibit anything between that and extreme masculinism.
Psychologists R. A. Seutter and M. Rovers have found that 24 homosexual men surveyed had a significantly lower mean level of intimacy with their fathers than did 130 heterosexual men (Seutter & Rovers 2004). Clearly linked to Freud’s original theory, these psychologists believe that this evidence supports the theory that men who have a stronger relationship with their mother than with their father will result in homosexuality due to the lack of heterosexual masculine influence on them during development.
This study raises the question of if the relationship with the father has changed. It may have been healthy during the homosexual’s youth, but once the father discovered his child’s sexual orientation, they may have grown distant. If this is true, there would be no difference in psychological development relating to father-relationships between homosexual and heterosexual men.
Jean Focault believes that homosexuality is no more than a sexual desire, detached from emotion, and that it is a product of our culture. He says that it only appeared about one hundred years ago “when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul” (Thorp 1992).
The majority of sexuality scientists today understand homosexuality to be more than sexual desires, but also emotional and romantic desires between same-sex partners. Focault’s assertion that homosexuality is no more than sexual behaviour flaws his theory.
Homosexuality has not always been so uncommon. During Ancient Greek times, homosexual relations were very common, but usually just in an older-to-younger situation. One theory that can explain this is that everyone is capable of homosexuality, but it depends on societal acceptance and examples set for children for people to become homosexual. The problem with this becomes apparent when one distinguishes sexual behaviour from sexual orientation. Almost everyone who engaged in same-sex behaviour was or became married to someone of the opposite sex. It would appear that life-long commitment was rare in homosexual cases; it’s debatable whether this can qualify as someone’s “orientation” if it’s nothing more than sex.
Choice
Psychological causes of orientation may result in a subconscious choice, as one may say, but some believe that homosexuality and bisexuality are the result of a conscious choice. If this is so, one would imagine that sexual orientation could be adjusted through psychological intervention.
Numerous organisations perform conversion therapy, which aims to “convert” homosexuals or bisexuals to heterosexuality and utilises techniques such as behaviour
modification, aversion therapy, psychoanalysis, prayer, and religious counseling. If such treatment is successful as they report, this would be evidence that homosexuality is something chosen and not inborn, since something genetic or set during development would not be alterable.
Many organisations who provide sexual reparative therapy are usually religious in nature (often promoting prayer as a form of treatment) and have a strong anti-gay bias. Groups such as Focus on the Family are agenda-based rather than medical in nature.
The most cited study for success in reorientation therapy was done by R.L. Spitzer in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, where 247 homosexual men were given therapy. Of the men, 11% reported complete reorienting, whereas 37% of the women did. A majority of respondents reported change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation.
There are a number of concerns with Spitzer’s study. Of the male respondents, 76% were currently married and 47% of the females were. Only 41% of participants reported to have ever been openly gay. The scale used to determine orientation in the subjects was based on 0 to 100, 0 being exclusively heterosexual. Subjects had to scale at least at 60 to be qualified for therapy, but a score as low as that would be considered bisexual by followers of Kinsey’s scale. Another issue with the study is volunteer bias. Participants all volunteered to be converted, so the sample was not random.
In a study done by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder (2003), 176 (87%) of 202 individuals surveyed reported to perceive failing conversion therapy. Of those who reported perceiving success (26), 12 (46%) reported repeated incidents of homosexual behaviour.
Of the 176 participants who underwent reparative therapy and considered themselves “cured,” and then regained their gay or lesbian identity, 155 suffered significant long-term damage from the therapy. They blamed themselves for failure to change and reported feeling worse than before they entered therapy. Depression, suicidal ideation and attempts were common: “I felt more depressed after I did the therapy. The negative aspect was that I really felt it was all up to me, a choice I had made, and because of that choice I was condemned to being in this pain forever. This need for unnatural affections,” said one participant (Shidlo & Schroeder, 2003). Another said: “I wanted to die. I felt as though I would never change and be ‘cured.’ It harmed my self esteem very much. I wanted to die. I felt as though it took away who I was… I took away my dignity” (Shidlo & Schroeder, 2003).
Authoritative medical associations strongly discourage re-orientation therapy and many have deemed it unhealthy and unsafe. According to the American Psychiatric Association:
The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that
homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve
acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or
lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approached to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed (Shidlo & Schroeder, 2003).
If homosexuality and bisexuality are a lifestyle choice, we would not expect these traits to exist in animals which are unable to recognise or make a conscious decision about their orientation; but countless species have been known to mount or mate with the same sex, including dogs, bison, penguins, swans, dolphins, and even gut worms. This behaviour could only be caused by natural causes as these animals are incapable of simply deciding which sex to be attracted to. It can be assumed that human homosexuality shares similar causes and there is more to it than mere thought.
As Simon LeVey (1996) points out, though, it might be inappropriate to give animals “orientation”:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity” (LeVey, 1996).
This may apply to incidents such as dogs mounting each other occasionally, but is harder to apply to situations such as homosexual relationships in emperor penguins, who may pair together for many years, ignoring potential opposite-sex mates.
From the research reviewed in this paper, one can conclude a few things. A large amount of evidence indicates that homosexual orientation is not caused by one single factor. It is evident that there are multiple influences on the development of sexual preference: genetic and pre-natal factors stand out. There is a very small amount of data on purely environmental influences. This may be the cause of either lack of evidence of environment affecting homosexuality or a lack of research done on it. If the latter, further studies may yet give us a better understanding of the causes and influences of homosexuality. It is also indicated that homosexuality is not a choice, both due to lack of evidence (or faults within evidence supporting it) and presence of strong evidence supporting biological causes.
It’s important for the question of the causes of homosexuality to be addressed for the sake of satisfying those struggling with their sexual or gender identities, to explain heterosexual behaviour through a different lens, and to add to the collective human knowledge. With sex being such a dominating force in humans, emotionally and physically, it’s a question that should have been asked and researched in depth by psychologists and biologists alike a long time ago. And for these reasons, it’s vital that research in this area continues and hopefully one day we can conclusively understand the influences on sexual orientation.
References
Allen, L. S., & Gorski, R. A. (1982). Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 89, 198.
Bailey, J.M., Pillard, R.C., Neale, M.C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. General Psychiatry, 50.
Blanchard, R. (2001). Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality. Hormones & Behavior. 40, 105-114.
LeVey, S. (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LeVey, S., & Hamer, D.H. (1994). Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Scientific American. 270, 43-55.
Seutter, R. A., & Rovers, M. (2004). Emotionally absent fathers: Furthering the understanding of homosexuality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 43-49.
Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. 33, 249-260.
Spitzer, R.L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 32, 403-417.
Stein, Edward (1997). The Ethical Relevance of Scientific Research on Sexual Orientation. The Journal of Homosexuality. 27, 269-308.
Thorp, John (1992). The social construction of homosexuality. Phoenix. 46, 54-61.
Election
Thursday, November 6th, 2008 | Misc. | No Comments
Well, Obama won. Everyone seems to have pretty mixed feelings about him. My dad complains that he’s too centrist; I think that’s probably a good thing. One day I’ll be voting for a more socialist (zomg~) candidate, but we shouldn’t have radical change right now. With the economy going down the tubes, the deficit, and the war, we need someone to just make things stable. Some issues are pretty pressing, like the healthcare system, which he does intend to make… a couple alterations to. I’ve always been for government-run universal healthcare, but I’m worried about doing a massive overhaul at this point in time.
So whatever. As long as he stablises the country and not gets us into deeper trouble abroad, I declare it a job well done. We can go crazy-liberal in 2016.
ohai
Thursday, November 6th, 2008 | Personal | 1 Comment
I know I don’t do this blogging thing too much anymore, but here I be. I’ve been too overwhelmed with school to do anything. Even now I’m procrastinating writing a program to do a radix sort on an array of integers, writing a hangman GUI, and drawing call stack diagrams.
Most of today it’s been raining. Looked like we had a thunderstorm on the way. But when I walked out of class, I found snow. And it was sticking, too. I guess this isn’t a huge surprise, I mean, it is November in Minnesota. I’m glad for winter to come finally.
Sometimes I get my dad’s hatemail
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 | Misc. | 365 Comments
I’ve received several emails from this person. They started out feigning innocence, asking why I think I’m an atheist. I responded that because religion was never given a special status of “infalliable truth/tradition” in my home as a kid, I treated it the same way as anything else. Etc. He called me a liar. I replied snarkily, saying he’s only willing to believe what he wants to believe and everything else must be a lie. And he was insulted that I would insinuate such a thing. Afterall, he only emailed me in earnest curiosity. Progressively he just got madder (all while accusing me of being the angry one, oddly). I stopped responding as I got busy with this thing called “education” (Gustaf is clearly unhindered by such things). Otherwise, my masochistic tendencies would’ve made me respond to him again anyway.
But then today I got a new email from him, out of the blue:
Now I got it. I saw that your birthday was up, and 18, oh, i thought you where older.
So then we have the nswer[sic] just there, you are simple rebelling and you will eventually mature and accept Gods[sic] glory. I also think that your father IS 100% responsible for your condition, telling you that there is no God or that we are all monkeys.
He has an entire page dedicated to it. Well, you will soon grow up little girl, and then you will look back at your childish youth. Worst case would be that you end up like your father, completely void of knowledge refusing to accept God in his life, living a sad empty life thinking his[sic] a monkey.
You will hopefully grow up, or lets[sic] pray your mother or grandparents or friends will help you get away from your sick parents. It should be illegal for people like them to have children.
With Love
Oh boy. Now that I’ve heard a true, loving Christian say that my parents are sick and that it should’ve been illegal for me to be born, I REALLY want to join your religion.
I’ve had more love and happiness in my life through my parents, my brothers, and my friends than any plagiarised deity could ever give me. Or creepy people like Gustaf and his flock.
Why it should scare a person so much that someone doesn’t need a pretty lie with shaky evidence and a huge fixation on death to have a fulfilling life, I’ll never understand.
End of summer update
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 | Misc. | 21 Comments
… Or “What I did this summer”
For the first month of summer, I was tutored by one of my professors on Java (and much thanks to her, should she stumble across my blog ever) and wrote a program to tag parts of speech. It’s not quite complete and deals with ambiguities in a not-too-clever way, by just spitting out all the possible syntaxes it could be. I’m still pretty proud of it. I wish I could get some sort of research funding to keep working on it, but better qualified people have written similar programs before me.
I’ve gone on two vacations this summer. I went to Collin’s family reunion in June and just recently got back from a trip with him to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area for a week. I return much tanner.
I’ve worked a fair bit too. Projectionist at the theatre here. I designed their site and the UMM Mock Trial’s site (in progress). Computing Services sucks, so that’s still not online. I also just did some random junk.
Books I bought
Yes, yes. I bought more books this summer.
Contemporary Linguistics
A Short History of Nearly Everything
Warped Passages
Semantic Antics
Cien años de soledad
Plans
School will start in less than a month now. I’ll finally escape into a world of bad cafeteria food and roommates. I’ll be taking…
- Programming Languages
- Intermediate Spanish
- Data Structures
- Seminar I (for comp. sci.)
- Probability and Stochastic Processes
In a little over a month, I’ll be turning 18. Just in time for election. I’m also going to finally get a drivers’ permit. Stay off the road for the couple weeks following that.
I’m getting pretty into web design stuff these days. Now that Ros has given me a bunch of Adobe programs, I can do some serious graphic design too. I’m planning on redoing the site a bit. Taking the blog off the front page, put up some of my little side projects, etc. I also want to create my own wordpress theme. I’m also going to switch domain names (skatje.com will just forward to it). I just think skatje.com is kinda egotistical and less… professional. Even though my site isn’t exactly professional. Eh. http://lacrimae-rerum.org is now the official address. Woot.
That’s all.
:O
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 | Misc. | 23 Comments
My site’s back up. Finally.
Have I mentioned how much I hate Computing Services?
Pascal’s Wager
Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 | Atheism, Essays | 23 Comments
P1: If God exists, then the utility of believing that God exists is infinite, whereas the utility of disbelief is at most finite.
P2: If God doesn’t exist, then the utility of belief is at most finitely negative and the utility of non-belief is at most finite.
P3: Therefore, the expected utility of belief in God is infinite and the expected utility of disbelief is at most finite.
C: Therefore, rationality demands that we believe in God.
One has two options: to believe in God or to not believe in God. Additionally, there are two possible outcomes: God exists or God does not exist. If one believes and he exists, then payoff is infinite. If you believe and God does not exist, then at most, the amount you lose is finite. On the other hand, if you don’t believe and God exists, then you may gain at most a finite amount. If you don’t believe and God doesn’t exist, then you may gain at most a finite amount.
Because of the possibility of gaining infinite reward, with the consequence being a merely finite loss, it is more rational and beneficial to believe in God.
| Outcomes | God exists | God does not exist |
| Wager for God | ∞ | f1 |
| Wager against God | f2 | f3 |
Should someone be convinced by Pascal’s Wager that belief in God is a better choice, their belief would not constitute “true” belief. They would believe based on their own personal wants, not because they truly have faith that God exists. If true belief in God is the criteria one is judged by, then the person would not be meeting it.
Next one must question if that is indeed the criteria one would be judged by. A god might choose to reward someone for just leading a morally good life, or may choose to reward only those who do that as well as believe. For example, the Abrahamic gods require belief in God as well as to follow the tenets of the religion, such as the Ten Commandments.
Further, there are infinite possible outcomes. There could exist a God who rewards skepticism, or there could exist a God who rewards you if you eat oranges every Tuesday, or there could be a God who requires both in order to reward you. With so many possibilities, the chances that you’re doing everything right to gain your reward is basically equal whether or not you choose to believe in God.
Pascal left out a negative infinity consequence (colloquially: hell), which also has implications. If we looked at Pascal’s original, simple wager, this would dramatically decrease the utility of disbelief, adding to Pascal’s case. But as discussed, God (or gods) could reward for as many different bizarre things as they’d like, and equally, they could punish you for any possible thing. The best thing you could wish for at that point is that there is no God at all, otherwise you’re playing Russian roulette with half the chambers loaded.
But can the utility of salvation even be infinite? Such a concept is hard to conceive of. Many say that in heaven (the presumed source of infinite reward), there is no evil and you are perfectly happy. Some say that life without something to complain about would be very boring. It’s the occasional unhappiness that makes the rest of the time enjoyable. In this way, always being happy is an impossibility. Although someone in favour of Pascal’s argument may counter that if the reward cannot logically be infinite, it would still be the greatest utility possible.
Taken too far, Pascal’s Wager may result in an argumentum ad consequentiam, or appeal to consequences. Pascal’s Wager can only tell you what will be more beneficial to your well-being/happiness, but cannot make any truth claims. No matter how desirable certain consequences are, this does not add to the likelihood of God actually existing.
Book meme and summer project
Saturday, April 26th, 2008 | Misc. | 29 Comments
Bold means I’ve read it. Italicised means I am planning to get around to it. Underline means I’ve partially read it, though this by no means says that I won’t finish it. Most likely I started it, got distracted by homework or something, then ended up picking up something else when I got back freetime. So if it’s underlined and italicised, I’m going to get back to it.