User Tag List

First 789

Results 81 to 89 of 89

  1. #81
    Senior Member bedeviled1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    ^No. And I can't be bothered to explain myself.I've seen that stupid arousal study cited countless times. It doesn't prove anything at all about the sexual orientation of women. There are so many problems with it I don't even know where to start, so I won't bother. I'll just counter with a whole bunch of studies that directly contradict your assertion. In the initial study 37% of men experienced homosexual orgasm (compared to just 13% of women) of which only 4% claimed to be exclusively homosexual. That means ~1 in 3 men are pretty damned flexible.
    Over time, as cultural norms have changed, more women report homosexual experiences than in the past, but men are still overwhelmingly better represented.
    If we extend the scope of sexuality to cover perversions - like bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc - do you still hold to your assertion that women's sexuality is more "flexible"?
    You also see plenty of evidence for male sexual ambiguity in the animal kingdom - suggesting biological, rather than cultural origins. I think the (on average) greater strength of the sex drive in males, coupled with the largely mechanical nature of sexual stimulation and orgasm accounts for much of it.
    I'll grant that women's sexuality is more complex (biologically speaking), and I'll grant that women are more likely to use sex as currency (without arousal being a condition of exchange) but I do not accept than women are inherently more sexually ambiguous / fluid than men are and neither does an unbiased examination of the literature support such a view.
    I don't want to waste anyones time but it seems that superiority would be the main issue in a gay man treating a woman with a lack of respect. I realize this will be offensive but I think such attitudes should not be encouraged.
    "May you live all the days of your life"

  2. #82
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    I don't want to waste anyones time but it seems that superiority would be the main issue in a gay man treating a woman with a lack of respect. I realize this will be offensive but I think such attitudes should not be encouraged.
    Are you a gay man? If not, what makes you qualified to make such a bold claim? (Even if you are, same question) Do you feel superior? Are you projecting? Do you feel inferior? Are you projecting?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #83
    Senior Member bedeviled1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Are you a gay man? If not, what makes you qualified to make such a bold claim? (Even if you are, same question) Do you feel superior? Are you projecting? Do you feel inferior? Are you projecting?

    No. Several women have affirmed this situation between gay men and women. I think your on the defensive and will not acknowledge that it is not acceptable in this society, or any

    Am I projecting? If I was I wouldn't know it would I. I don't have any evidence of such a claim nor am I qualified . The only evidence I have is your responses and excuses.

    Look at it as a unique point of view. You seem to be a very intelligent and intellectual gay man. My intention was not to offend you or any others.
    "May you live all the days of your life"

  4. #84
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    If you are arguing that men (in general) don't always employ a great deal of judgment or require a great deal of emotional investment when horny, then that's pretty demonstrable. I'm certainly not arguing that men are more cautious sexually, or won't (in certain states) get off about any way they can.
    Those things are directly linked with more "flexible" sexuality.
    /self-evident
    I am conscious that we are talking somewhat at cross-purposes. You are talking about "fluidity" as a measure of consistent sexual orientation across time. I am talking about "flexibility" as a measure of diversity of sexual behaviour at any one time.
    I was referring to the prevalence of same sex-attraction and bisexuality, and specifically that women's sexual orientation (and attraction) seems to be more fluid over the lifespan.
    Your data suggest that lesbian sexual orientation is more fluid than that of gay men. This says nothing about women "in general"( which was your claim). Surely, you don't think it's sound to extrapolate from a self-identified minority to a general population?

    So, I think there are few interesting things there. First, men are more likely to have participated in homosexual behavior without reporting homosexual desire or identity. Secondly, women are more likely to have reported same sex desire (only) without acting on it.
    This actually supports my position. To me, engaging in sexual behaviours which are not integrated into one's sexual identity is a measure of greater sexual flexibility - in the sense we are discussing here. The mismatch between identity and overt behaviour is almost certainly a cultural byproduct.

    Sexual fantasy does not necessarily say anything meaningful about sexual identity. People have fantasies about sexual taboos which they have no intention or inclination to fulfil. This is fairly common in women. Sexual fantasy is escapist rather than pure wish-fulfilment.

    In order to reject VPA's construct validity, one would have to come up with an alternative explanation for increased vaginal pulse that correlated with sexually explicit visual material, but had little to do with being sexually aroused.
    No. It isn't necessary to come up with an alternative explanation. The onus is on the person making the claim to prove the link unequivocally. If I publish a paper claiming women with very long middle fingers have a higher sex drive than others, it's not for my detractors to prove that finger length and sex drive are unrelated. (Science, 101). Therefore, I reject it, and for the same reason you appear to endorse it - while VPA may provide a better correlation than the measure it replaced (which, despite having no construct validity, nevertheless features in one of the most cited studies of "female sexuality" of all time) it is not conclusive. We know this for the same reason the previous study was discredited.
    If a woman says she is not aroused, she is not aroused. End of story.
    Even before we acknowledge that VPA measurements are commonly contaminated by an unfavourable signal: noise ratio. Much like these studies...

    Further, one must wonder if the participants in these studies are truly representative of the female population at large. There are no women of my acquaintance who would willingly subject to having their vaginal pulse taken whilst watching porn in a lab. I wonder how many women would volunteer for such a survey, and whether they might have slightly unusual sexual profiles?
    There are some interesting things here "One striking difference between female and male genital arousal data is that there is a much lower concordance between genital and self-reported subjective arousal measures for women than for men (Chivers, Seto, Lalumiere, Laan, & Grimbos, 2006). That is, when men are genitally aroused, they usually report that they are subjectively aroused as well. This is substantially less true for women. We do not currently understand why this unlinking of genital and subjective sexual arousal occurs in women."
    "We do not understand". Says it all really. How does one draw conclusions about phenomena one does not understand which remain uncontaminated by one's prejudices and assumptions? One of the most offensive and frequent conclusions drawn from such studies is that "women don't know what they want when it comes to sex".
    Or that their bodies betray their lying tongues. I'm kind of surprised that you think this study tells us anything interesting about sexual orientation and sexual identity. Or bears any correlation to sexual behaviour. All of these things have cognitive components.

    Again, this study replicated the earlier study's finding that men are aroused by depictions by their preferred sex in sexual situations, while women are turned on more generally.
    Doesn't this contradict your earlier assertion that "men are more visual than women"? All the stimuli in the experiment are visual in nature...

    "one would have to come up with an alternative explanation for increased vaginal pulse "

    ...unless...oh wait... It couldn't be that inserting a probe into a woman's vagina might somehow, say, stimulate it in some way, increasing blood flow? Thereby invalidating the experiment? If I play with some dude's dick while he's watching Blue Planet and he gets hard, does that make him a cetaphile? The public demands to know!
    Can a woman be turned off and on at the same time? Do vaginas exist in quantum states - altered by the act of observation and measurement? When we open the box, will we find the pussy alive? Ding! Ding! Ding! Perhaps I should write a paper...

    Are sex researchers the dumbest people on the planet and if so, should we blame porn?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #85
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    You seem to be a very intelligent and intellectual gay man.
    LMAO. I'd like to return the compliment. But it would be disingenuous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  6. #86
    Senior Member bedeviled1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    LMAO. I'd like to return the compliment. But it would be disingenuous.
    Touche'
    Educated ? No. Intelligent? Somewhat. That's just more of an idictment against you. But, hey, everything that comes from your mouth must be truth. If anyone doesn't believe it, just ask you.
    "May you live all the days of your life"

  7. #87
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    ^Alas, I'm not a gay male. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. Or you could take the more "scientific" route and stick a probe in my vagina.


    @Seymour
    Holy shit, I just finished the Bailey paper. Didn't you notice that he defines sexual arousal COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY for men and women?

    This is what he says about men:
    Most researchers conceive of sexual arousal as having physiological, affective, and cognitive components, and these components can be dissociated (e.g., Janssen, Everaerd, Spiering, & Janssen, 2000; Wiegel, Scepkowski, & Barlow, 2007). Sexual arousal is an emotion and hence depends on more than penile erection. In men who are awake, penile erection is usually accompanied by sexual arousal; indeed, penile erection usually requires such arousal. (Healthy men who are asleep often experience spontaneous “nocturnal” erections, and it is doubtful that this represents sexual arousal as I mean it.) The converse is not always true, however. Men are capable of feeling sexual arousal without a measurable erection. This is particularly true of older men and of men with erectile dysfunction. The main point here is, again, that a sexual arousal pattern is not equivalent to relative erection to different kinds of sexual stimuli. Most men who do not become genitally aroused to any stimuli in a laboratory assessment report that they do feel such arousal to at least some of the stimuli. And presumably all such men have some kind of sexual orientation.
    So far, so good. Men can be physiologically aroused but not psychologically aroused and vice versa. Men presumably have sexual orientation and the occasional inconsequential stiffy.

    One might expect the author to extend the same leniency to women, but no! Women's sexual arousal is determined solely, in his view, by the mysterious proclivities of their vaginas, to hell with subjective report - wth do they know, they're just women, right? And from this "evidence" he reaches the inescapable conclusion that "most women with heterosexual identities and preferences have a bisexual orientation" or instead "that for most women sexual orientation – the orienting of sexual feelings and behavior toward certain targets and not others – is not about a sexual arousal pattern." What. The. Fuck?
    "Perhaps because most women do not have sexual arousal patterns directed at a particular kind of person, they cannot easily develop misdirected sexual arousal patterns and dysfunctional sexual orientations." Because Fuck Logic.
    "In contrast to the male heterosexual arousal pattern, the female heterosexual arousal pattern does not appear to have been designed by evolution to motivate women to seek opposite-sex partners. For most women, their sexual arousal pattern is an ineffective orienting device indeed. " Just as well we have men around then, whom evolution has given better sense. Won't somebody think of the children!!?
    How do fuckwits manage to get funding for this crap?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  8. #88
    Senior Member bedeviled1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    ^Alas, I'm not a gay male. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. Or you could take the more "scientific" route ...?
    I would apologize but that would be dis...disengin....hell with it
    "May you live all the days of your life"

  9. #89
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-05-2015, 08:32 PM
  2. Brains of gay men similar to heterosexual women
    By NewEra in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 08-19-2010, 02:03 PM
  3. How are you being treated by men and women of different age (and why?)
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-29-2009, 03:01 PM
  4. Men (and women!) of Mystery
    By cm08 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-27-2009, 06:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO