• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do "straight" women exist?

In science, self-reporting is considered the least reliable source of data, for a very good reason.
Strictly speaking, science is observational. This means (I think) that for a scientific study of sexuality the scientist has to be in the bedroom to observe what is actually going on. Animal scientists are actually observing the sex before documenting it.

Even the notion of a person being a "spectrum of sexuality" cannot escape being an anecdote until a scientist directly observes a spectrum of sexuality.
 
Strictly speaking, science is observational. This means (I think) that for a scientific study of sexuality the scientist has to be in the bedroom to observe what is actually going on.

Seriously? You're going to say "Were you there?" in response to something like this? (For those who don't get the reference, that's what Creationist teachers tell their students to ask teachers when the teachers discuss evolution.)

Science works on the best data it can get its hands on. The data about human sexuality are getting better and better as society gets more and more open about talking about these topics.
 
Seriously? You're going to say "Were you there?" in response to something like this? (For those who don't get the reference, that's what Creationist teachers tell their students to ask teachers when the teachers discuss evolution.)

Science works on the best data it can get its hands on. The data about human sexuality are getting better and better as society gets more and more open about talking about these topics.
Yeah, seriously (notice that I did say strictly speaking).

Evolution doesn't require direct observation because fossils and living animals provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to seal the deal that evolution is a fact - and fossils and animals don't tell lies to scientists, nor do they mistakenly misrepresent themselves.

People do lie and misrepresent, and so direct observation is necessary for the strictest standards of science.
 
Actually the researchers concluded no such thing. That appears to have been made up by the journalist. And the finding that woman are more likely than men to show physiological arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli is not new and is very well replicated.

And just what is being defined as 'arousal'? Has it been shown to be specific to sexual arousal? Did they put little sensors on women's clits?
 
:rolleyes:
Any evidence to support your slandering of the scientists responsible?
Given the conclusion is unlikely, it suggests confirmation bias affected their conclusion.

Shhhh, actually reading the study is cheating. Just watch the responses. :)
The study claims a conclusion I know for a fact is over-generalized. I am female. I am a very sexual being. I know exactly what turns me on, and other women don't. And they never have. And I got nothing against gays. I wouldn't care if I was gay. I have more than a few gay friends. If women turned me on I would consider it. But they don't. I don't get aroused by lesbian sex scenes in books or movies, looking at the hot female body in a magazine only makes me jealous I'm not that skinny.


I tracked down the abstract.
Studies with volunteers in sexual arousal experiments suggest that women are, on average, physiologically sexually aroused to both male and female sexual stimuli. Lesbians are the exception because they tend to be more aroused to their preferred sex than the other sex, a pattern typically seen in men. A separate research line suggests that lesbians are, on average, more masculine than straight women in their nonsexual behaviors and characteristics. Hence, a common influence could affect the expression of male-typical sexual and nonsexual traits in some women. By integrating these research programs, we tested the hypothesis that male-typical sexual arousal of lesbians relates to their nonsexual masculinity. Moreover, the most masculine-behaving lesbians, in particular, could show the most male-typical sexual responses. Across combined data, Study 1 examined these patterns in women’s genital arousal and self-reports of masculine and feminine behaviors. Study 2 examined these patterns with another measure of sexual arousal, pupil dilation to sexual stimuli, and with observer-rated masculinity-femininity in addition to self-reported masculinity-femininity. Although both studies confirmed that lesbians were more male-typical in their sexual arousal and nonsexual characteristics, on average, there were no indications that these 2 patterns were in any way connected. Thus, women’s sexual responses and nonsexual traits might be masculinized by independent factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

OK, here's my gripe. The article's behind a pay wall so instead I looked at the evidence the pupil dilation was a valid measure of arousal. And guess what, it is in men but maybe not in women.
Eyes Reveal Sexual Orientation
In women, things are more complex, Savin-Williams said. Gay women show more pupil dilation to images of other women, similar to the pattern seen in straight men. But straight women dilate basically equally in response to erotic images of both sexes, despite reporting feelings of arousal for men and not women.
So either you can say, the women are aroused and lying, for some bizarre reason. Or, pupil dilation is an unreliable measurement of female sexual arousal. Given I know I'm not lying, I'd say my expereince, plus this finding, support the conclusion that the conclusion the researchers in the OP article are drawing is not supported by their objective measure, pupil dilation.

Ergo, confirmation bias.

Despite the finding that the women in the study didn't report sexual arousal correlating with pupil dilation, the conclusion the dilation was an accurate measure is repeated in the OP study. And yet:

Eye-Opener: Why Do Pupils Dilate in Response to Emotional States?
...Researchers at Cornell University recently showed that sexual orientation correlated with pupil dilation to erotic videos of their preferred gender, but only on average and only for male subjects. Although pupillometry shows promise as a noninvasive measure of sexual response, they concluded, "not every participant’s sexual orientation was correctly classified" and "an observable amount of variability in pupil dilation was unrelated to the participant's sexual orientation."

Ergo, confirmation bias.


So don't tell me I had no basis for my position.


You want to track down the article and find out how they measured "women's genital arousal" and we can look at that measure as well. Again, given I know what turns me on, and given women don't, I'm going to guess the validity of that measure is unreliable as well.
 
Last edited:
I skimmed the study. It definitely did not say everything the article claimed it did. More crappy reporting going on here. The study simply found that female sexuality, while encompassing the extremes of pure hetero/homosexuality, had a great deal more flexibility, and a lot less of the extremes, than popular belief would hold. Nothing entirely controversial there, since its no the first study to find that.

I do have some issues with the methodology, particularly the reliance on a fairly limited physiological measurement. Better data is needed before we can draw any useful conclusions.
So how did they measure women's genital arousal?

Curious minds want to know. :)
 
I am a woman. I am not attracted to, and have never been attracted to, other women. I can stir up no interest in it whatever. I do not enjoy female-on-female porn. I have never had a fantasy or dream about sexual activity with another woman.

Anecdotal, I know, but there you go. I seem to be about as far to the hetero side of the spectrum as one can get.
I'll add you to my evidence list that the research is questionable. :)


I chatted with my wife about this some while back, and she is exactly the same. She had a gay room-mate at uni, who tried to interest her, but the idea of sex, or any form of intimacy, with other women was deeply uninteresting to her. So, there, you have my all-but-useless piece of anecdotal evidence, one data point, to throw into the mix.

I believe her.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, seriously (notice that I did say strictly speaking).

Evolution doesn't require direct observation because fossils and living animals provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to seal the deal that evolution is a fact - and fossils and animals don't tell lies to scientists, nor do they mistakenly misrepresent themselves.

People do lie and misrepresent, and so direct observation is necessary for the strictest standards of science.

So you're basically saying that social science boils down to "Pics or it didn't happen".

It's hard to come up with a less coherent view of science than the one you've presented. I'm truly impressed. It's obvious you've never actually worked with a dataset (if you think fossils can't lie, I'd say it's obvious you've never actually analyzed one as well--there's a whole field of study devoted to exactly that).
 
Given the conclusion is unlikely, it suggests confirmation bias affected their conclusion.

The study claims a conclusion I know for a fact is over-generalized. I

If you haven't read the article, you don't know what the conclusion is.

I tracked down the abstract.


OK, here's my gripe. The article's behind a pay wall so instead I looked at the evidence the pupil dilation was a valid measure of arousal. And guess what, it is in men but maybe not in women.
No, the article is not behind a pay wall. It is freely available on Researchgate.net and linked to directly from Google Scholar.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...y_of_Women/links/5631288c08ae13bc6c356050.pdf
 
If you haven't read the article, you don't know what the conclusion is.


If you have, you still don't know what the confusion is; because the article is badly written and has claims not really supported by the actual study.


No, the article is not behind a pay wall. It is freely available on Researchgate.net and linked to directly from Google Scholar.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...y_of_Women/links/5631288c08ae13bc6c356050.pdf


Stop trying to drag facts into this. They just get in the way of a perfectly good agenda.
 
By that measure I'd be predominantly gay. Girl is really not my type. I'll take Christina Hendricks over her any day of the week (and twice on Sundays).

The point was that Carolina Montenegro is one of the world's most beautiful women, who just happens to be transgender.

Stop projecting. Seriously, why do people always assume that others have _some_ characteristic that only the labeler can see?

What am I assuming?

I'm basing the opinion on research and observation. It seems a given that women are sexually attracted to all genders; a huge number of boys experiment with other boys; a huge number of men removed from the presence of women will act sexually with other males; a huge number of men in relationships with women seek sexual liaisons with other men; it's common in our close ancestors - it seems to me that there's a slew of reasons why humans would have at least some degree of sexual fluidity.

Maybe some people don't - I'm no expert, but the ones who scream the loudest that they're all straight are so often the ones caught with rent boys.
 
The point was that Carolina Montenegro is one of the world's most beautiful women, who just happens to be transgender.


Still don't agree on the "most beautiful" assessment; but I take your point.

Maybe some people don't - I'm no expert, but the ones who scream the loudest that they're all straight are so often the ones caught with rent boys.


There was a study posted here recently showing a very strong correlational link between violent homophobia (as opposed to garden-variety religious/cultural prejudice) and repressed homosexuality.
 
To expand a bit on what I was saying earlier:

Scientists can work with really crappy data. It's actually not nearly as unusual as even well-informed non-scientists think; I'd say most if not all our datasets have fairly big gaps in them. The truth is, scientists will use any data we can get our hands on, and quite often we're stuck using extremely bad data. I'm currently working on a project where data has been collected essentially randomly (in terms of timing, location, and sample media) over the past 25 years. My job? Explain how the site works. The trick is knowing how to compensate for those issues. Errors in data are not random (and those that are are trivial to address most of the time); if you know how the errors fall, you can adjust for them.

For example, we know that women under-report sexual activity. How much is always a question, but there are ways to figure that out (that's how we know it's under-reported). So any data you get from self-reporting on the part of females can be treated as the lowest theoretical limit; the reality is certainly higher.

Measuring physiological signs of arousal gets around that, at the expense of over-estimating (depending on the signs you pick). So you can use the two to bracket the actual value (with some serious caveats, of course).

Science in the real world doesn't work like it does in undergrad text books. It's an astonishingly messy process in every sense of the term. When you're dealing with humans it's worse than normal. That doesn't make it rational to dismiss the study because you don't like the dataset. The reality is that one must understand the dataset and how it relates to what the authors are trying to demonstrate. It's fairly complex, and I'm not sure a non-expert can do it adequately. There are simply too many variables.

The one thing I can assure you of, though, is that demands that scientists witness sexual intercourse before they draw conclusions about human sexuality will be met with derisive laughter and result in your opinion never being taken seriously again.
 
If you haven't read the article, you don't know what the conclusion is.


No, the article is not behind a pay wall. It is freely available on Researchgate.net and linked to directly from Google Scholar.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...y_of_Women/links/5631288c08ae13bc6c356050.pdf

Thanks for the link. What's with all the hostility because I don't think the research supports the conclusion?

I posted an evidence based response to the abstract (and on that link it said pay). All this 'you didn't read it' is crap. I addressed the methodology in the abstract.
 
From the paper:
A BIOPAC MP100 data acquisition unit and the program AcqKnowledge recorded genital responses every 5ms. Women’s genital arousal was assessed via change in vaginal pulse amplitude (VPA) using vaginal photoplethysmographs (Janssen, Prause, & Geer, 2007). The VPA signal was sampled at200 Hz and high-pass filtered at 0.5 Hz with 16 bits resolution.VPA was measured as peak-to-trough amplitude for each vaginal pulse. VPA signals indicate changes of vaginal blood flow and exhibit both convergent and discriminant validity of female sexual response (Suschinsky et al., 2009).

So, is that a reliable measure of arousal? I've already shown that the pupil response is not an accepted valid measure of sexual arousal in women.

From Wiki:
There is an overall poor correlation (r = 0.26) between women's self-reported levels of desire and their VPG readings[10] suggesting that vaginal blood flow is not a reliable indicator of female sexual arousal and a better method is needed. Men using the penile plethysmograph have a far greater correlation between reported arousal and blood flow. An improved technique with better correlation is Laser Doppler imaging of genital blood flow.[11]
10) Chivers, Seto, Lalumiere, Laan and Grimbos. ["Agreement of Self-Reported and Genital Measures of Sexual Arousal in Men and Women: A Meta-Analysis"], "Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1): 5–56. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811244/

11) ["Laser Doppler imaging of genital blood flow: a direct measure of female sexual arousal."], "Journal of Sex Medicine 2009 Aug;6(8):2278-85. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19493290/

Here's the link to the validity of the tool: Agreement of Self-Reported and Genital Measures of Sexual Arousal in Men and Women: A Meta-Analysis
In this meta-analysis, we review research to quantify the extent of agreement between self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal, to determine if there is a gender difference in this agreement, and to identify theoretical and methodological moderators of subjective-genital agreement. We identified 132 peer- or academically-reviewed laboratory studies published between 1969 and 2007 reporting a correlation between self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal, with total sample sizes of 2,505 women and 1,918 men. There was a statistically significant gender difference in the agreement between self-reported and genital measures, with men (r = .66) showing a greater degree of agreement than women (r = .26).

Look people, it was a crappy study. Isn't an evaluation of methodology something we should all be looking at before repeating the findings as if the results were actually meaningful? These researchers used two less than reliable measures. That's called bad research!
 

Back
Top Bottom