Do "straight" women exist?

[Elaedith]

Here's the links again to the validity of the tools:

Eyes Reveal Sexual Orientation in men but not in women.

Agreement of Self-Reported and Genital Measures of Sexual Arousal in Men and Women: A Meta-Analysis
Further:


Ie, not reliable in women.

You all owe me an apology for accusing me of not reading the study and not being objective about the methodology. Not that I expect to get one, or even an honest look at the problems with the methodology in this study.

You think the studies you have cited here are both sound, and conducted by researchers who know what they are doing, I take it?

 

[caveman1917]

So I'm gonna throw the BS flag on the "social construct" thing. It made sense, I guess, within the preconceived notion set of Marxist-influenced Feminism, but fails on exposure to reality. My boys liked "boy" stuff and not "girl" stuff, and my girl is totally a "girl" and has been from the time she could make her own choices.

Have you considered that it being a social construct means you can't really test this in such an ad-hoc way within a larger social context based on gender stereotyping? If you want to test this you look at other societies and cultures, where anthropological research does indeed show it to be a social construct. Social constructs like this are not something you can just simply declare yourself to be outside of.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You think the studies you have cited here are both sound, and conducted by researchers who know what they are doing, I take it?

Given one was a meta-analysis and the other showed very clearly one would have to discount women's reports of what did or didn't arouse them, yes.

Do you think it is a valid argument to ignore what people say arouses them in favor of the researchers' assumptions that their tests are valid? The studies weren't looking at sexual perverts that had any reason to deny arousal.

 

[Elaedith]

Given one was a meta-analysis and the other showed very clearly one would have to discount women's reports of what did or didn't arouse them, yes.

Do you think it is a valid argument to ignore what people say arouses them in favor of the researchers' assumptions that their tests are valid? The studies weren't looking at sexual perverts that had any reason to deny arousal.

So you don't think there is anything odd about the fact that the studies you are citing are part of the same research program and were conducted by the same researchers as the study you say is bunk?

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

"Straight" women? Hell, I like'm curvy.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Straight" women? Hell, I like'm curvy.

"Real women have curves.

And more sense than to hang around with me."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you don't think there is anything odd about the fact that the studies you are citing are part of the same research program and were conducted by the same researchers as the study you say is bunk?

Odd that two of the researchers overlap, yes, doesn't change the facts.

Wouldn't be the first time someone soldiered on despite the fact their findings didn't fit their hypothesis.

 

[jakesteele]

Yes, I was common law married to a straight woman. I should know, I tried for eight years in vain to get her to do a threesome with me and another bi-woman. Rats!