women are "never straight"
- Thread starter malf
- Start date
Arouet
Member
If that were the case, given how many people don't really feel great about their own bodies (especially when comparing them to the apparently good looking people in the pictures) wouldn't you then expect there to be less arousal?
I haven't closely read the original study, what do you find unscientific about it. They measured physical indicators of arousal (we see this kind of thing a lot, including in parapsychology with the presentiment experiments).
It is interesting to see whether people's self reports of what they find attractive matches how their bodies react.
David Bailey
Member
Yes, but there is a crucial difference. In a presentiment experiment, the subject should (under conventional assumptions) be totally unaffected by the image that is yet to be selected by the computer. That means that regardless of the exact cause of the arousal, if it is correlated with the type of the next picture, that is significant, and inexplicable conventionally.
I basically agree with Saiko, modern science pumps out a mass of 'results' (about black holes, wormholes, sex, diet, climate, super-foods, the multiverse, dangers from this and that,.....) just to keep noticed. Few people believe them!
David
Arouet
Member
The question was whether this experiment is pseudoscience. As I understand it, previous experiments have determined that our body has certain physiological markers when aroused.
My point was that the methodology seems standard for measuring attraction using methods that we find even in parapsychology. You seem here to accept that these are markers of arousal.
I'll admit I haven't read up on attraction studies outside of parapsychology so perhaps you know something I don't. What makes this experiment pseudo-science?
Heh, the usual critique on this forum is that people are generally sheep who unquestioningly follow the scientific priesthood! ;)
In any event, with all due respect this is pretty much just rhetoric. We can demonstrate any number of practical results that come out of scientific research, even with its flaws. The vast majority of scientific work does not come to the attention of the news media and therefore doesn't come to the attention of the general public.
This experiment, particularly if it is replicated, and if the results are similar in men could hopefully help curb homophobia, and alleviate the feelings of guilt and disgust that some homophobes have when they find themselves being attracted to someone of the same gender which can lead to anger and increased hatred towards homosexuals (think of the neighbour from - crap, what was that movie with the guy filming the plastic bag floating in the wind, and the girl lying in the bed of flowers? - American something? This is going to bug me now...)
Edit: American Beauty!
David Bailey
Member
Well I didn't use the phrase pseudo-science, which is really used as a term of abuse. I think people's reactions to nudity may be very complicated, and maybe women respond to a picture of a naked woman by identifying with that woman and imagining love making with a man. It is very hard to tease these things apart convincingly.
An awful lot of 'scientific research' appears in the press, and a lot of it looks like this - it is a form of soft pornography!
That wouldn't justify the research as such, and in any case, I think it could be used in the opposite direction. Religious homophobes often claim that homosexuals choose that lifestyle. Telling people that lesbians chose to behave that way might not help at all.
David
tim
New
I'll bet the study has been a great success for Dr Gerulf .....I'll bet he's scored every night since it appeared in the Telegraph. Another really, really useful piece of work from a psychology department. Maybe he could expand it to include middle aged old farts, I could do with some action
Vault313
New
Ok. Here's the deal, I think I can speak for all women here since I seem to be the *only* resident female. Ok? Ok.
It has everything to do with media.
It's absolutely no secret that females signify sexuality far and away much more than men in western society. I've literally been brainwashed to see the female form, my own form, as sexual. Sure, there is some sexualizing of men, but not anywhere near approaching the level of female sexualization.
The female body has been used to sell EVERYTHING, from hamburgers and cars to dishwashers and refrigerators. Ask any female about the (mostly harmful) psychological effect of advertising on self esteem and self image, and you'll get an earful. It effects us in more ways than just "I need bigger boobs" or "Im fat" or "I wish I had her body".
It also isn't because the female form is more "beautiful" than the male form. The male form can be quite beautiful. But we aren't programmed to see, well, any part of a mans body as purely a tool for sexual gratification. Usually an "ideal" male form is used to signify strength, ability, courage and respectability. The "ideal" female form is used to signify sexual appeal and desire (lust, fertility, etc).
What would have been far, far more interesting is to compare female sexual response from women in other cultures and varying degrees of exposure to western media.
It has everything to do with media.
It's absolutely no secret that females signify sexuality far and away much more than men in western society. I've literally been brainwashed to see the female form, my own form, as sexual. Sure, there is some sexualizing of men, but not anywhere near approaching the level of female sexualization.
The female body has been used to sell EVERYTHING, from hamburgers and cars to dishwashers and refrigerators. Ask any female about the (mostly harmful) psychological effect of advertising on self esteem and self image, and you'll get an earful. It effects us in more ways than just "I need bigger boobs" or "Im fat" or "I wish I had her body".
It also isn't because the female form is more "beautiful" than the male form. The male form can be quite beautiful. But we aren't programmed to see, well, any part of a mans body as purely a tool for sexual gratification. Usually an "ideal" male form is used to signify strength, ability, courage and respectability. The "ideal" female form is used to signify sexual appeal and desire (lust, fertility, etc).
What would have been far, far more interesting is to compare female sexual response from women in other cultures and varying degrees of exposure to western media.
Please note that variables = possibilities. I'm not stating that such is/was the case, just that it wasn't accounted for.
Llets say a woman looks at a photo of another naked woman. Her thoughts move to comparison then to wondering if men like the other woman's body more than they do her's, then a sex scene is in her head and she's thinking about the sex she's had and becomes aroused. That's not even a rare scenario. There are many others.
Vault313
New
No, I don't think so. Men just aren't programmed to see their own or any other mans body as primarily a sexual object. Straight men are just not sexually aroused by other men, to the point of being a detractor. I think this is why you see more pornography centering around just females, including multiple females and no males at all. Granted, sexuality is a complex and varied thing, but it's undeniable that certain cultures find certain things to be more sexual than others. (i.e. The "lesbian" trope, where two attractive females, who aren't lesbian, naturally find each other sexually attractive [not true] and western societies absolute obsession with large breasts).
This study also doesn't go into the psychological reasons why women view the overall sexual act, from attraction to seduction to intercourse, as stimulating. This also has a lot to do with cultural conditioning. Women often view their own self-worth through a sexual lense. Their value is determined by how strongly other men value her attractiveness. A great deal of female desire is derived from how strongly the male desires her. So watching two people together, especially a circumstance in which the male just "cannot control himself", is seen as arousing. This is why you see this same trope repeated over and over again in romance novels and rom-coms.
Vault313
New
No, again, I don't think so. Granted, every woman is different, but when comparing what would be seen as an "ideal" female body to their own (naturally flawed because you can't photoshop reality) it's anything but arousing. Again, do not underestimate the power of societal programming. Females are hit with the over-sexualization of their own bodies, and how that links to self-worth, from a very, very young age. By the time females become sexually mature, all of that media BS is in there, operating mostly subconsciously.
As a female, knowing this is true, it's still incredibly hard to go against that programming.
tim
New
" But we aren't programmed to see, well, any part of a mans body as purely a tool for sexual gratification."
I'm not sure that's quite right, Vault. :-) Some of the young ladies my sons get involved with would make a crow blush.
Vault313
New
I'm not saying that men CAN'T be objectified or that any part of the male form can't be seen as sexual. I'm saying the male body, first and foremost, is not portrayed as or primarily seen as a sexual object. The female body IS.
Obviously I find the male body attractive and I've done my fair share of objectifying the male body (something I think is entirely normal and human). But it's the level at which the objectifying takes place.
I can appreciate a nice male form, and even think about it sexually, without thinking that is the ONLY thing that particular male, or any male for that matter, is good for. Unfortunately, I have seen first hand that the same cannot be said for the objectification of women.
This is, in my experience, hard for most men to understand. Even my husband, who is a kind and respectful person, has a hard time understanding this. It's easy as a woman to get pegged as some sort of femi-nazi for even talking about this. It really is hard to know and understand unless you've been in those shoes.
Arouet
Member
Well, you adopted Saiko's "crap passed off as scientific research" which is basically the definition of pseudo-science isn't it?
That's the point I was responding to.
I'm sure there are many aspects to this issue that should be considered. I can't seem to find the actual study here. I don't know what factors he took into account, or to what extent this issue has been canvassed in this line of research. I suspect you don't either.
Your knee-jerk dismissal of this researcher as basically an attention-whore, just looking for a headline is out of line.
Searching the author on pubmed I see that he has done a lot of research into arousal, both physiologically and pscychological, and has a particular focus research into sexual orientation.
Some of the papers:
- Gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, and psychological well-being.
- Concealment of sexual orientation.
- Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation.
- The eyes have it: sex and sexual orientation differences in pupil dilation patterns.
- Heterosexual attitudes toward same-sex marriage.
Personally, I think its a pretty darn good reason. But that's just me. Of course its broader than that. The study of human sexuality seems important to me.
Where does it say he concludes that lesbians choose to be more aroused by pictures of women than those who identify as straight or bisexual?
tim
New
"I'm saying the male body, first and foremost, is not portrayed as or primarily seen as a sexual object."
Maybe but I think the gay community tend to highlight men's anatomy sexually.
Last edited:
Arouet
Member
Just from a look of his pubmed results it appears he has done research in that vein:
Also looks like he might have done the study from the male perspective.
If the title is suggestive of the findings, it would contradict my guess a few posts up that men would have similar results.
Vault313
New
Dang, I can't read either one because they are behind a paywall. The abstract for the first however doesn't really address what I was getting at.
There have been some studies done regarding what different cultures see as "beautiful". And while some perceptions vary widely, there were also some commonalities, such as facial symmetry.
But that doesn't really get at why women would view other women sexually in a larger proportion than men view other men sexually. It would be a difficult study to do in more developed societies, since media is so much a part of daily life.
I'm not sure how far in depth the study in the OP went. But teasing apart the "why" is no small feat. You have to take into account a large number of variables, which it doesn't sound like this study did. I'm thinking this is why some members above branded this as pseudoscience.
Making such a bold statement as "women cannot be straight" based on one study, whose confounding factors are a mystery at this point, is the very definition of pseudoscience. Moreover, as a female, it's offensive.
Of course I can find other women attractive. I can even see why they would be desirable sexually. That doesn't mean I want to be with them sexually or otherwise. If I have a physiological sexual response to naked females, it doesn't mean I actually want to have sex with females.
What is tragic here is that an idiotic proclamation regarding female sexuality was made, however erroneously, with absolutely zero regard for what the actual reason for a physiological response might be.
Once again, female sexuality is oversimplified and marginalized.
The Moderator
New
Totally unrelated, but I thought you might enjoy this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100821103255AAHnFcE
:D