[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.179[View All]

File: 1561011153652.jpg (107.05 KB, 292x397, 292:397, 9782818909676.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Some time ago some magazine posted a dry article on #metoo and our culture where people harass and abuse women.
Then the same magazine posted a fun little piece on the new Detective Pikachu movie stating it is a shame that it is all so childfriendly and that Pikachu could be funny as a beer drinking, belching and womanizing critter.

It does raise the question. While most agree hopefully that #metoo shows the disrespect women can get in our society and we should respect personal boundaries a lot more, do you think our culture in sexual comedy etcetera plays a large part into enabling this?
Do we come to a point where we need to review and censor things like that to improve our society?
80 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.935

>>932
>It doesn't really matter how many would go backstage after the concert if they say they're attracted to him, we should just believe that.

How does it not matter? If how they say and how they act are different, that matters dramatically. Saying you're attracted to someone, and actually being aroused by them are two different things. Saying it doesn't matter seems to imply that simply saying you're aroused by something is exactly the same as actually being aroused by them. In fact, this leads me to another study.

http://indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Chivers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf

I think that's the more technical paper, and here's a more digestible breakdown of the study

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Which showed men and women various sexual acts, and asked them how aroused they were, and measured that vs. actual physiological genital arousal:

<"The men, on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms “category specific” ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.

<All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. "

So yea, no, based on this study, i think saying you should just accept women's' answer is clearly misguided, as the study shows that there's a major disconnect between what women say they're turned on by, and what they actually physically respond to. At the very least, it means men and women experience and process arousal in fundamentally different ways, in which case we're speaking entirely different languages in the first place, and thus more or less inadvertently talking past each other. This study also supports that women aren't attracted to men, as it seems the only things women didn't respond to physiologically was the men not engaged in sex acts. Even the women not engaged in sex acts got a better response. That seems to pretty definitively suggest that there's no actual attraction to men.

>But it's stupid anyway, because you can just ask women, are you attracted to men (Lippa, 2007)

See above.

>Also, who 'maintains social status' by making youtube comments? That's ridiculous, there's nothing to be gained here. It's as un-invoking of an environment as you're likely to find. It really is.

If people have a practiced behavior of social signaling, it would just become second nature. They would do it simply as a matter of habit.

>spape

I'll not 100% sure what the data means based on your graph, so idk if you have a link i can follow, buf if you do, i'd like it. I don't blame you if you don't, i know these things are often paywalled, but i would be interested to actually get a better sense of the study and what it means, and i'm just not getting that here. I suppose i can always do some more in-depth googling later. It certainly seems interesting.

>>934
>Also, in relation to that data you have from pornhub, this doesn't actually support heterosexual women being not being attracted to men. We don't have numbers on how many of them self-identify as lesbian, nor do we even have numbers on how much lesbian porn they viewed, in relation to porn with men present in it

It was more popular among women. Doesn't that suggest that they prefer it over anything with men in it?

>and we can't guess as to, what they might have been fantasizing about while watching it. The data is woefully incomplete.

Why in the world would someone watch one type of porn, and then fantasize about something completely different?! That makes no sense. Why would they not just go find the type of porn they'd be fantasizing about?

Also, if there is this abundance of legitimately straight women, as you claim, why would there not be more porn that caters to them? Why would straight women have to resort to lesbian porn? Shouldn't the number of horny straight women create a demand for porn catering to their needs? Wouldn't this mean successful tags that would include both the hot men you claim they're so attracted to, AND be respectful to them? Doesn't the lack of these things more or less debunk the idea that there's some secret hidden payload of straight female lust just under the social surface? The social stigma argument doesn't hold water here, either, since porn is generally something people do alone, and not under their real names.

It is very possible that we're just dealing with a lack of data here, but from the points we do have, it seems to suggest that women aren't, at least from a primal, physiological level, attracted to men. In fact, it suggests their not even neutral about it. The response is negative.

 No.936

>>935
>How does it not matter? If how they say and how they act are different, that matters dramatically. Saying you're attracted to someone, and actually being aroused by them are two different things. Saying it doesn't matter seems to imply that simply saying you're aroused by something is exactly the same as actually being aroused by them. In fact, this leads me to another study.
It doesn't matter, because there could be all sorts of reasons why willingness to go backstage is not predictive of arousal. It's a deadend essentially. It does matter whether or not they are actually attracted to him but your proposed measurement is really unfair to women. It essentially lays on them that unless they're sleeping with guys, we can't trust their testimony. And we should trust their testimony to a pretty high degree.

The paper you posted is accounted for in Spape et al. They specifically reference it and explain the results. You should read that paper, it's good.

Also, never trust popular portrayals of science... Honestly, it's crap more than 90% of the time. Journalists usually do NOT know how to read these, and are incentivized to misrepresent the data to get clicks. Reading the conclusions and discussions of a study carefully will give you better understanding 100% of the time.

>as the study shows that there's a major disconnect between what women say they're turned on by, and what they actually physically respond to
It doesn't, read Spape et al.

>At the very least, it means men and women experience and process arousal in fundamentally different ways
This seems true, according to the empirical evidence.

>I'll not 100% sure what the data means based on your graph, so idk if you have a link i can follow, buf if you do, i'd like it. I don't blame you if you don't, i know these things are often paywalled, but i would be interested to actually get a better sense of the study and what it means, and i'm just not getting that here. I suppose i can always do some more in-depth googling later. It certainly seems interesting.
It is behind a paywall, but there are online grassroots databases for the liberation of knowledge like this.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.07.008
you're welcome.

>Why in the world would someone watch one type of porn, and then fantasize about something completely different?! That makes no sense. Why would they not just go find the type of porn they'd be fantasizing about?
Heterosexual porn often caters to men specifically. My friends tell me, that starting from a lesbian porn video and moving into fantasizing about men, is often more enjoyable than clicking on a non-lesbian video, and running the roulette of what kind of awful thing is going to be done to the woman in that video. Rough anal, clitmashing and stuff like this is all on the table.

>Also, if there is this abundance of legitimately straight women, as you claim, why would there not be more porn that caters to them
There's tons.

Even looking at pornhubs breakdown you can see there's tons. But women might not go to pornhub, they might use other sites, or read fiction, or play dating simulators, or any other number of things

But just ASK WOMEN. It's so simple. You're jumping through all of these hoops, trying to prove that women don't really feel what they claim to feel, but you can just trust them. Honestly.

 No.937

>>936

> It essentially lays on them that unless they're sleeping with guys, we can't trust their testimony. And we should trust their testimony to a pretty high degree.

So the fact that they're not sleeping with guys, have different psychological and subjective responses, ergo their stated heterosexuality cannot be trusted, don't have physiological arousal to man's bodies, AND they masturbate to porn without men in it... None of that suggests to you that men just don't do it for them? Your faith in people's honesty about their sexuality is that much stronger than all that evidence? I'm sorry, but that seems awfully stubborn of you.

>But just ASK WOMEN. It's so simple. You're jumping through all of these hoops, trying to prove that women don't really feel what they claim to feel, but you can just trust them. Honestly.

Oh yea, great idea, just go up to a random woman and go "oh hey, can you please tell me what turns you on, i swear it's for academic purposes!". I don't think you are, but like, if not, what exactly are you suggesting i do? Can you promise me it won't lead to a slap or restraining order? Plus, any response i'd get would be well considered for social filtering, and thus be largely useless, so it's really not that simple at all.

And again, the Chivers study shows that either i won't really understand what they're saying to me in a meaningful way, or, they very much will lie to me and i very much can't trust them. Am i wrong?

Also, hey! Looks like Chivers was directly involved in the Spape study, too! Interesting! If only we could ask her about it, i'm sure she'd have something enlightening to say about it!

 No.939

>>936

Also thank you very much for the link! I have a feeling i'm going to get a lot of mileage out of that site!

 No.940

>>936
>>937
I already went over why the pornhub data is flawed! I have better data, which indicates that women are aroused, so the situation is actually the reverse, reliable evidence AND testimony both indicate the same thing.

>Oh yea, great idea, just go up to a random woman and go "oh hey, can you please tell me what turns you on, i swear it's for academic purposes!". I don't think you are, but like, if not, what exactly are you suggesting i do? Can you promise me it won't lead to a slap or restraining order? Plus, any response i'd get would be well considered for social filtering, and thus be largely useless, so it's really not that simple at all.
I mean obviously you should be a bit tactful in the way you speak to others.

>And again, the Chivers study shows that either i won't really understand what they're saying to me in a meaningful way, or, they very much will lie to me and i very much can't trust them. Am i wrong?
Yeah, read Spape.

I know, that's how academics work. These fields are very much interconnected, and in fact the spape study is a continuation of the chivers study. It's published 7 years after, and is much more cutting edge.

 No.941

>>939
Yeah, no worries, enjoy curiosity, and use the knowledge for good, obviously. Otherwise it's hard to justify stealing it.

 No.942

>>940
There's some really weird results here. It's pretty interesting. I do wish they'd have included masturbating men and masturbating women as some of the material shown. That way you'd have prepotent material that wouldn't involve actual sex, would only involve one person, and would be gender-specific. Seems like a bit of an oversight.

 No.943

>>942
Technically, the most ecologically valid study would be to measure genital reactions during intercourse with men and women in a natural setting, everything else is artificial by comparison. Voyerism isn't necessearily predictive of arousal in the act itself, and crucially, watching someone masturbate would be really far removed from the environment of evolutionary adaptation.

Since the experiments we really want to perform are kind of unethical or extremely difficult to find volunteers for, we're stuck with some weird data most of the time.

Which is why I personally really like testimony and qualitative evidence. It fills a lot of the gaps, if you listen carefully.

 No.944

>>943
>Which is why I personally really like testimony and qualitative evidence. It fills a lot of the gaps, if you listen carefully.

Eh... I just think any self-reported data about sexuality is bound to be entirely too filthy to use. Do you expect the self-reported sexual activity of 15-year-old boys to be 100% factual and accurate? I'm sorry, but i just don't think my mother has enough time to be servicing that many middle schoolers, and i also have reason to believe she is not a pedophile.

 No.945

>>944
>Do you expect the self-reported sexual activity of 15-year-old boys to be 100% factual and accurate?  I'm sorry, but i just don't think my mother has enough time to be servicing that many middle schoolers, and i also have reason to believe she is not a pedophile.
You know, that those are jokes right?

I trust self-report, as gathered by scientists, who know how to maximize the validity of the data.

 No.946

>>945
But that's kind of an unfair motte and bailey.

I also trust it when my friends speak candidly to me of their experiences.

 No.947

>>945

I mean, it was a bit of a joke, but the point still stands. People are culturally conditioned to respond a certain way, truthfully or no. I think this is especially true in matter of sexuality. Hence why i think self-reported data on the matter isn't going to be usable. Internalized slut-shaming, or the inverse, are going to muddy the waters, yea? Even if they intend to be truthful, that can't account for internalized falsehoods, exaggerations, or omissions.

I don't really trust self-reported evidence in general. People lie and polygraphs are crap.

I don't know you or your friends, so i can't make a determination to the validity of the claims either way.

 No.948

>>947
>I mean, it was a bit of a joke, but the point still stands. People are culturally conditioned to respond a certain way, truthfully or no. I think this is especially true in matter of sexuality. Hence why i think self-reported data on the matter isn't going to be usable. Internalized slut-shaming, or the inverse, are going to muddy the waters, yea? Even if they intend to be truthful, that can't account for internalized falsehoods, exaggerations, or omissions.
You can expect a stable degree of fibbing corrosponding to the direction of typical social desirability bias, but not to the point where they say the opposite of what's the case, this would be very, very unusual.

 No.949

>>948
>You can expect a stable degree of fibbing corrosponding to the direction of typical social desirability bias, but not to the point where they say the opposite of what's the case, this would be very, very unusual.

I mean, it doesn't have to be exactly the opposite. It could be exaggerated or underplayed. And yes, scientists will know how to maximize validity, but that hardly cleans the data completely. Only so much can realistically be done. The date is still too dirty to be considered reliable, i think.

 No.950

>>949
It depends on what you're going to use it for. Do you want an intuitive understanding of women's sexuality? Just ask them.

Do you want to determine how much arousal is correlated with some other factor. You might need more precise measures than self-report can give you.

The methods have different strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative data commits constant category errors and leaves out any semblance of nuance in many cases, while qualitative data can be imprecise and vague, but has greater potential to accurately represent human experiences in a holistic way.

 No.951

>>950

>It depends on what you're going to use it for. Do you want an intuitive understanding of women's sexuality? Just ask them.
>The methods have different strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative data commits constant category errors and leaves out any semblance of nuance in many cases, while qualitative data can be imprecise and vague, but has greater potential to accurately represent human experiences in a holistic way.

I guess, but i don't feel like asking women would do either. Wouldn't the answer change based on how they feel about me? If they thought i was creepy for asking, i'd get one response, if they thought i was curious on an emotional level, that's a different response. If they thought i was interested on an academic level, that's yet a third response. If they were attracted to me or not, that's yet another response. These responses could very much be contradictory and/or untruthful. I suppose if it's someone i've like, known for years, i can crunch those factors to some degree of accuracy, but man, i just wouldn't trust it.

 No.952

>>951
>If they thought i was creepy for asking, i'd get one response, if they thought i was curious on an emotional level, that's a different response.
Yes, that's very true, so you should ask people that trust you. Or, if you don't have anyone you feel comfortable asking, listen to people's vlogs or read their books, or find testimony that has been made publically avaiable.

>These responses could very much be contradictory and/or untruthful. I suppose if it's someone i've like, known for years, i can crunch those factors to some degree of accuracy, but man, i just wouldn't trust it.
Here's your problem I think, you're thinking in categories. You have to give up some of this black and white categorical thinking you have, it's anyway just constructions. Just try to feel it out. You'll do fine, especially once you get a bit of practice in.

 No.953

>>952

>listen to people's vlogs or read their books, or find testimony that has been made publically avaiable.

Because those are of course going to be 100% accurate and not shaped by social expectation or expectation of what will be well-received at all...

>Just try to feel it out.

You do realize that the moment i'm wrong i'm labeled a sexual harasser, get put on a sex offender list, probably can't ever get a proper job again... Hell, i might not even get the chance to know. A woman might tell me things are good out of some misplaced sense of intimidation, and then even if i try to ask her she'll lie about it to my face, and then the day after  i'm #metoo'd. There is no way for me to know for sure! And even just trying to know is probably going to be a pretty efficient panty dehumidifier.

So no, i can't just "feel it out". Because there's no clarity or mercy for straight men who trust their instincts and then fuck up. If straight women themselves can't figure out their attraction, what hope do i have when all i'm working with is my straight male gut reaction?

 No.954

>>953
>Because those are of course going to be 100% accurate and not shaped by social expectation or expectation of what will be well-received at all...
Well you have to account for that in your analysis.

You can't just cynically reject reality because it's nuanced. I mean you can, but it won't help you.

>You do realize that the moment i'm wrong i'm labeled a sexual harasser, get put on a sex offender list, probably can't ever get a proper job again... Hell, i might not even get the chance to know. A woman might tell me things are good out of some misplaced sense of intimidation, and then even if i try to ask her she'll lie about it to my face, and then the day after  i'm #metoo'd. There is no way for me to know for sure! And even just trying to know is probably going to be a pretty efficient panty dehumidifier.
I feel like you're entering this from the wrong frame. As long as you respect consent, and generally respect your fellow human, no one worth listening to is going to resent you anything. And yes, sometimes it is okay for the panties to remain dry. Not every moment has to be about sex. This is why women feel objectified maybe, is because some dudes feel like even doing ANYTHING that might not lead to sex around a woman is a bad idea.

I don't understand. The reason why you're not okay with trying to understand women by talking to them, is because you're worried they won't have sex with you if you do. But how could women ever be interested in you, if you're not even willing to listen to them? Surely, you must be aware that it's not healthy to have so much distrust for other people.

 No.955

>>954
>I feel like you're entering this from the wrong frame. As long as you respect consent, and generally respect your fellow human

Really? Firstly, what defines "consent?" As i understand it, you can retroactively withdraw consent, so a yes before and during the act might become a no once it's ended and she feels weird about it. Bam! Now i'm a rapist and there's nothing i could have done to prevent it! As long as slut shaming is a social force, it's something i'll have to consider. Consent can be retroactive and relative based on female interpersonal social factors i have nowhere near enough knowledge of to properly factor. I don't know whether one girl sleeping with me will be socially beneficial or socially detrimental! I don't intimately know the social dynamics of her peer group.

>no one worth listening to is going to resent you anything.

And how do i know whether or not someone is "worth listening to"?

>sometimes it is okay for the panties to remain dry. Not every moment has to be about sex. This is why women feel objectified maybe, is because some dudes feel like even doing ANYTHING that might not lead to sex around a woman is a bad idea.

I'd like to some day have a mutually sexually satisfying relationship with a woman some day #sorrynotsorry.

Consider this: Let's say you make one female friend who you initially had sexual/romantic interest in, and it ends up resulting in a platonic relationship. Now you either have to not be friends, and feel guilty because everyone will treat you like an asshole for cutting everything off because the relationship isn't what you wanted, or continue to be platonic friends. Ok, fine so far, you have one female platonic friend, and she is consuming a certain amount of your time/resources, as friends of any gender tend to do. You try again, end up with another female friend, same result, now you have another platonic female friend. Repeat process until you have 25 platonic female friends. At some point, the number of platonic female friends consumes enough time/resources to render you unable to find the time/resources to pursue a romantic relationship. Hence, doing anything that might not lead to sex around a woman leads to more female friends, and too many female friends (friends in general, really) results in a crippled ability to pursue romance due to lack of time/resources.

>I don't understand, the reason why you're not okay with trying to understand women by talking to them, is because you're worried they won't have sex with you if you do.

Partially, yes. The fact that i have to ask will be perceived as an implicit admission of lack of empathy and implicit knowledge of her innermost desires. That is not sexy. Hence, they will not have sex with me if i talk to them about these things.

>But how could women ever be interested in you, if you're not even willing to listen to them?

Idk, physical attraction maybe? Are you conceding the earlier point that women aren't inherently sexually attracted to men?

>Surely, you must be aware that it's not healthy to have so much distrust for other people.

I mean, maybe, but the alternative is to take on an absurd amount of risk.

 No.957

>>955
>Really? Firstly, what defines "consent?" As i understand it, you can retroactively withdraw consent, so a yes before and during the act might become a no once it's ended and she feels weird about it. Bam! Now i'm a rapist and there's nothing i could have done to prevent it! As long as slut shaming is a social force, it's something i'll have to consider. Consent can be retroactive and relative based on female interpersonal social factors i have nowhere near enough knowledge of to properly factor. I don't know whether one girl sleeping with me will be socially beneficial or socially detrimental! I don't intimately know the social dynamics of her peer group.
Unless consent was given under duress or under fear, this isn't something that is considered valid by anyone, least of all by courts. And you'd have to be dealing with a real prick for that to happen. There's always a chance of encountering a major prick in the world, but most people are good people.

>And how do i know whether or not someone is "worth listening to"?
That's just a personal opinion. An opinion I'd invite you to share with me. If you've treated someone genuinely well and taken care not to overstep their boundaries (and do take care to examine your actions critically) and someone is saying you've been the worst person or something for no good reason, there's a pretty good chance they're not worth listening to.

>I'd like to some day have a mutually sexually satisfying relationship with a woman some day #sorrynotsorry.
There's no reason to feel sorry about that. But women aren't JUST sex objects. It's okay to, you know, talk to them also? They don't have to be this one-dimensional thing.

>Consider this: Let's say you make one female friend who you initially had sexual/romantic interest in, and it ends up resulting in a platonic relationship. Now you either have to not be friends, and feel guilty because everyone will treat you like an asshole for cutting everything off because the relationship isn't what you wanted, or continue to be platonic friends. Ok, fine so far, you have one female platonic friend, and she is consuming a certain amount of your time/resources, as friends of any gender tend to do. You try again, end up with another female friend, same result, now you have another platonic female friend. Repeat process until you have 25 platonic female friends. At some point, the number of platonic female friends consumes enough time/resources to render you unable to find the time/resources to pursue a romantic relationship. Hence, doing anything that might not lead to sex around a woman leads to more female friends, and too many female friends (friends in general, really) results in a crippled ability to pursue romance due to lack of time/resources.
You're thinking of relationships entirely too much like transactions. Through interaction more value is created than is taken away, if the relationship is good. And if you want some time to date and pursue romantic options, just say that.

Say, 'hey X, I'd love to hang out tonight, but maybe another time, I have some stuff I gotta take care of'.

And presto, time. It's not that complicated.

>artially, yes. The fact that i have to ask will be perceived as an implicit admission of lack of empathy and implicit knowledge of her innermost desires. That is not sexy. Hence, they will not have sex with me if i talk to them about these things.
Okay, but again, not every woman has to be just for sex, and not every interaction has to be about sex, right? Asking someone about their emotional health is also not conducive to having a good night out as friends, but that doesn't mean because I want to sometimes have good nights out with friends, that I don't also want to be an empathetic friend sometimes that gives people an opportunity to talk about some of the stuff that might be bothering them.

In the same way, it is possible to do things that are not about sex with women, while still also wanting to have a fulfilling sex life.

>Idk, physical attraction maybe? Are you conceding the earlier point that women aren't inherently sexually attracted to men?
No, of course not, notice I said interested, not attracted. For women, there's an extra consideration that comes with relationships, and that is that the dude is usually 1/3rd stronger, and usually has more of a dominating personality. What this means is, that there's a premium on guys that are willing to listen and hear you out, and anyone that isn't willing to listen to you at all, is a bit scary, because you don't know if they'll actually take you seriously, particularly if you say something like 'no' 'stop' or 'actually I'm not super into that'. As such, even if they're attracted to you physically, they may be unable to imagine a sexual relationship forming because the building blocks for one are not in place.

I'd invite you to consider empathy, listening and respect as cornerstones of mutually beneficial sexual encounters.

>I mean, maybe, but the alternative is to take on an absurd amount of risk.
It's inherently dangerous to listen to women??

 No.958

Also, as a sidenote, a clear line of communication and a willingness to listen is not just useful for sussing out when someone is uncomfortable.

It can be used to figure out when something feels really GOOD. And when you should keep doing what you're doing. And what someone would like it if you did again. And of course it's just generally really useful to have a relationship where you listen to each other. For all the reasons that we developed language and social cognition.

 No.959

File: 1563729452365.jpg (49.54 KB, 690x437, 30:19, men-vs-women-attractivenes….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>911
>That women simply aren't sexually attracted to men.
Or maybe women are sexually attracted to only the "best" men (by some metric) that they perceive are avaiable to them?
http://archive.is/yse2

 No.960

File: 1563729763169.jpg (216.51 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, 109652.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>959
uggghhhh

Why do you guys ALWAYS use pseudoscientific sources and infographs? Someone give me an actual publication with a solid description of methodology and a peer review process, just ONCE.

 No.961

There's so much good knowledge out there. Just use it.

 No.962

>>957
>That's just a personal opinion. An opinion I'd invite you to share with me.

Idk, i guess someone who has clearly thought out and wrestled with ideas themselves, really forged their identity, they haven't just slotted themselves into the easiest designated social slot, if that makes sense. They're sensible, but not cold. When i first meet them, they do something i don't expect, even if it's little.

>There's no reason to feel sorry about that. But women aren't JUST sex objects. It's okay to, you know, talk to them also? They don't have to be this one-dimensional thing.

Yea, sure, but as women tend to not like the same stuff as me, so there's nothing to talk about. Honestly, i'm rather baffled overall at what women do in their free time. They don't see to play video games, watch anime, watch tv or movies... at least i've not run into many women in my social circles dealing with these things. Then again, it's the internet, who knows who is what gender. Maybe it's just a matter of spending more time in meatspace.

>Okay, but again, not every woman has to be just for sex, and not every interaction has to be about sex, right? Asking someone about their emotional health is also not conducive to having a good night out as friends, but that doesn't mean because I want to sometimes have good nights out with friends, that I don't also want to be an empathetic friend sometimes that gives people an opportunity to talk about some of the stuff that might be bothering them.

>In the same way, it is possible to do things that are not about sex with women, while still also wanting to have a fulfilling sex life.

Yea, ok, but as my goal is to further my sex life, that isn't relevant information to me. I mean, i'm a sympathetic guy, i've been a shoulder for my friends to cry on, i'm not made of stone, but, at the same time, i also don't see being the beta that every woman in a 12-mile radius cries to about the abusive relationship she doesn't want to leave to as my calling. I don't see having 45 female friends, each of whom aren't attracted to me, "but aw, you're such a sweet guy, any girl would be lucky to have you, but purely theoretically, we all think you're gross" as a fulfilling life path for myself. Isn't being surrounded by women who you know think you're gross something of a demoralizing confidence killer? Just 45 living reminders of just how revolting i am to the opposite sex... Yea, sounds lovely...

>It's inherently dangerous to listen to women??

No, but a romantic relationship with one is. I guess it's not dangerous if you play it's safe, but it's also going to be a gigantic waste of time unless you happen to legitimately be friends, and as women don't like what i like, it's unlikely. Idk if women want to be friends with me anyway. I doubt women are that desperate for platonic male friends. Pretty sure "let's be friends" is just a code for "i want to make you go away without making you angry", anyway. So this whole conversation seems a bit silly and meaningless. The existence of shit tests pretty much makes you choose between risk and platonic friend.

>>959

Hmm, i wonder how you would determine your own spot on the metrics. I have a handful of good physical qualities, but some bad ones. I wonder how much being 6'1 buys me, and how much having a receding hairline looses me. Be interesting to see how one stacks up and where that leaves you.

I guess it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. And we see this behavior in monkeys. One male is able to impregnate many many females, after all. It makes sense they'd all go for the top 1% and stay away from anyone else.

 No.963

>>962
>Yea, sure, but as women tend to not like the same stuff as me, so there's nothing to talk about. Honestly, i'm rather baffled overall at what women do in their free time. They don't see to play video games, watch anime, watch tv or movies... at least i've not run into many women in my social circles dealing with these things. Then again, it's the internet, who knows who is what gender. Maybe it's just a matter of spending more time in meatspace.
Women are individuals, they do different things.

I don't think women typically think their male friends are gross? Is this like an undeniable truth or something in your world, that if a woman is friends with someone, she must think he's gross?

>No, but a romantic relationship with one is. I guess it's not dangerous if you play it's safe, but it's also going to be a gigantic waste of time unless you happen to legitimately be friends, and as women don't like what i like, it's unlikely. Idk if women want to be friends with me anyway. I doubt women are that desperate for platonic male friends. Pretty sure "let's be friends" is just a code for "i want to make you go away without making you angry", anyway. So this whole conversation seems a bit silly and meaningless. The existence of shit tests pretty much makes you choose between risk and platonic friend.
Everyone likes having friends...
I just... have no idea what you're even talking about tbh

 No.967

>>963

>I don't think women typically think their male friends are gross? Is this like an undeniable truth or something in your world, that if a woman is friends with someone, she must think he's gross?

Well yea, if you have a person, and they want to have sex with you, and you don't want to have sex with them, then you're probably not super attracted to them. You probably think they're kind of gross. If this happens to a guy 45 times, from 45 different women, chances are he's not very sexually attractive to any of them. You'd feel very sexually undesirable if you got sexually rejected 45 times in a row from people who seem to like you alright as a person to keep you around as a friend. Probably means they don't like what's on the outside, and think you're gross.

>Everyone likes having friends...

Yea, sure, but friendships are generally based on something! Shared interests, shared experience, something! People generally aren't just friends at random! There's some criteria to it! Or at least some chemistry!

 No.969

>>967
>Well yea, if you have a person, and they want to have sex with you, and you don't want to have sex with them, then you're probably not super attracted to them. You probably think they're kind of gross.
Uh no???

Absolutely not?

I have a lot of friends I find very attractive, but who I would nonetheless not have sex with, and I have no friends that I consider gross, regardless of how little I want to have sex with them.

Not wanting to have sex with someone, that's something else. That's not gross, and it's not even necessearily judging someone to be sexually undesirable, it's just a situation of not wanting to have sex with someone.

>Yea, sure, but friendships are generally based on something! Shared interests, shared experience, something! People generally aren't just friends at random! There's some criteria to it! Or at least some chemistry!
You're exactly right, friendship does require chemistry, or some sort of rapport.

I think you might be a little bit rejection sensitive, if you're taking extensions of friendship, as signals to go away, to put it lightly.

 No.970

>>941
>Otherwise it's hard to justify stealing it.
Taxpayers already paid once to fund the research. Why should a private for-profit company have a right to prevent taxpayers from reading the results of this taxpayer-funded research?

 No.971

>>970
That's an interesting point, but I think the better argument is that knowledge in general should be free and distributed, as that is how it will be the greatest benefit to everyone.

I did, for example, not pay taxes in the US at any point in my life, and indeed most of the articles I read are of international origin.

Furthermore, The private company has the right to the articles, because the scientists signed that over to the journals for the right to publish in them. That is how that industry works. And just like pirating software is stealing that software in the eyes of the law, so is this stealing in the eyes of the law.

It's a shoddy system, certainly, but it's still an agreement that was made.

 No.993

>>969
>Not wanting to have sex with someone, that's something else. That's not gross, and it's not even necessearily judging someone to be sexually undesirable, it's just a situation of not wanting to have sex with someone.

So if you want to have sex with 45 people, and none of them want to have sex with you, but not because of your personality... you don't think that speaks to your physical sexual desirability at all? Is that the claim you're making here? Nobody wanting to have sex with you doesn't at all speak to how much people find you sexually attractive? If you don't mind, i'd like you to dig into that more, because i'm really confused at how you came to that conclusion.

>I think you might be a little bit rejection sensitive, if you're taking extensions of friendship, as signals to go away, to put it lightly.

Aren't women socialized to let down romantic advances easy? Isn't "let's just be friends" or "you're like a brother to me" just a pretty good way of rejecting a romantic advance without incurring anger or looking rude?

 No.994

>>993
>>971

So this situation: keeping in mind that it's a fictional song, as if even danny can go to bat and miss that many times, well then fuck, we're all doomed and humanity's on it's last legs...  Doesn't speak at all to the singer's sexual desirability?

 No.1014

>>993
>So if you want to have sex with 45 people, and none of them want to have sex with you, but not because of your personality... you don't think that speaks to your physical sexual desirability at all? Is that the claim you're making here? Nobody wanting to have sex with you doesn't at all speak to how much people find you sexually attractive?
Obviously, this is not the case, but this is also a ridiculous example you've concocted.

You're telling me, you don't even know what women have as interests, they're almost like a foreign species to you or something. So I think the focus for you should not be to catastrophize about how it would feel if 45 women rejected you all at once, this is just sooo far removed from the worries you should be having in this situation. It's very unlikely you'll ever be in a situation, where you simultaneously have an interest in 45 women. It'll like be 1, 2 or 3 at a time at the very most probably, and if it's any more than this, I'm going to suggest that you're not really interested in the people, you're just interested in the idea of the people.

I think it can probabilistically speak to your sexual desirability, if you keep getting rejected over and over again, yes, but you should use that as fuel, not as a deterrent. Just as if you get rejected on a job application, you have to ask yourself what went wrong, what could I do better to make this process work out. People can have totally legitimate reasons for not wanting to sleep with you at any given point of time that don't have to do with your sexual desirability, so fix those reasons, if they pertain to factors that are under your control.

>>994
I really don't think so, no. If you're inviting a bunch of people to an orgy, most would definitely say no, unless they 1) have like a lot of prior experience with that, 2) really trust you and 3) know who's going to be on the guest list, or potentially 4) have an incredibly unrestricted sociosexuality. If you just ask 10 people, chances are great you're going to get zero people responding, almost no matter who you are. I don't know what you're expecting here.

 No.1036

>>1014
> It's very unlikely you'll ever be in a situation, where you simultaneously have an interest in 45 women. It'll like be 1, 2 or 3 at a time at the very most

Well yea, probably. It wouldn't be all at once, more a semi-steady flow i imagine. I just mean the weight of that many rejections with no success, even if I've generally moved past earlier ones, does do a number on the old self image, and is a reasonable indication that the opposite sex does not find me very sexually appealing...

Leads me to kindof another point, which is that i'm not really sure how bad the rejection is going to be. Seems like it's socially acceptable for women to slap, throw drinks at, and do all manner of abusive things to men who take an interest in them. You'll excuse me if i don't want a shot glass lodged in my skull for making an honest advance, and as i don't really hang around in bars, i'm not sure to the what degree and frequency this happens. So that also makes me want to play it safe. I don't really do well with physical violence overall.

 No.1037

>>1036
>Seems like it's socially acceptable for women to slap, throw drinks at, and do all manner of abusive things to men who take an interest in them.
Um, no.  Trashy lower-class assetless women might do those things, but nobody regards it as socially acceptable, any more than bar fights between men are socially acceptable.

 No.1038

>>1036
>m not really sure how bad the rejection is going to be.
Have considered joining an online dating site like OkCupid?  I think the standard rejection is just to ignore the message that you send her.

 No.1039

>>1038

I tried dating sites for like a week, turns of for straight men it's like 99.9% camgirl ads and scams, kinda soured my experience with it, but perhaps all dating sites aren't created equal, who tf knows.

 No.1040

>>1039
Which sites did you try?

 No.1041

>>1040
Jeez, it's been years. I don't remember, sorry.

 No.1042

>>1041
Might be worth trying again

 No.1060

>>936
> And we should trust their testimony to a pretty high degree
I think most humans are somewhat unreliable at accurately reporting their sexual preferences.  E.g., human males are typically sexually attracted to human females who have begun puberty and display secondary sexual characteristics.  But these males typically under-report their attraction to females who are below the age of consent in their jurisdiction.

 No.1090

>>1060
Source?

 No.1101

File: 1564460559301.png (44.04 KB, 2900x2850, 58:57, penile-response-by-stim-ca….png) ImgOps Google

>>1090
Blanchard et al. [1] measured penile tumescence of "normal" men (heterosexual teleiophiles) and men with other sexual preferences.  For heterosexual teleiophiles, they found a phallometric response of 7 cc for adult women, 4 cc for pubescent girls, 2 cc for prepubescent girls, and 0.5 cc for adult men.  (Figure 1 in [1].)

[1] Blanchard, Ray, et al.  "Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men."  Archives of Sexual Behavior (2012).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3

 No.1121

>>1101
Okay, so the data is really good in some ways, but the way it was collected, the way it's presented and analyzed, and how it's interpreted all present us us with a few problems in regards to concluding that testimony regarding sexuality is systemically less reliable than quantitative data. I'm just gonna rattle these off.

- All subjects had committed criminial offenses or where criminas, that's kind of a huge selection bias. We can't be sure how that influenced results or measurements
- The vast majority of subjects had a previous history of sexual assaults or rape, often with multiple counts. So, maybe not average people we're dealing with here, in terms of sexuality.
- All subjects were men. Selection bias again. We might expect different results with women or with a sample representative of a broader population.
- There's a category error that we subtly perform, when we equivocate sexual attraction with what people in everyday life are talking about when they talk about sexual attraction. Because our language has no words widely used for romantic orientations, those ideas get conflated. And to what extent the asked person is actually witholding information, or just relaying culturally learned romantic patterns with attraction is uncertain. Within that degree of uncertainty lies the beauty of qualitative testimony. It's here that we find nuance and possibility to escape existing boundaries and rigid semantic structures. That nuance, all dissappears, when we try to operationalize.
- Phallometric data, although considered some of the most reliable attraction data in experimental psychology, has been frequently shown to be not ecologically valid. Phallometric data collection has systemic problems that present themselves if you try to generalize it to real life sexual and romantic behavior, or even to other forms of attraction measurements, that capture different facets of the human responses to other humans. There's a lot of situation context which is important to human sexual behavior that is not at all measured here. Like, imagine if images just don't do it for you. What if you're a person that needs to be touched or to feel certain things from your partner. This test doesn't capture your sexual experience at all, in this case. In my own case, for example, I can be a somewhat insecure person, and it can help me to be in a safe environment for me to get aroused. If I was in a lab with a weird device strapped to my penis and under observation, you can bet you'd get some pretty unreliable and invaid measures from me.

Furthermore, aside from these problems, the data actually supports what I said more than it discredits it. The vast, vast majority of men studied here were found to have a phallometric response congruent with their testimony. 89% of subjects responded to sexual stimuli in relation to their proposed orientation, and the rest were on average non-responders. That is to say, they got much less aroused by any of the images. It's possible that simply seeing pictures didn't turn them on, they needed some kind of act or to situate the object of attraction in some kind of specific act or setting.

This suggests that if you just asked someone, you would get a congruent orientation at least 89% of the time, and the other 11 you'd probably get some non-responders, som not people that are lying about their orientation, and also a good portion something we don't even understand or know how to quantify, but which was forced to respond in a weird binary.

Blanchard et al. also admit, that their model isn't perfect. They know that it doesn't apply reliably to all members of the population, conceding that self-reported sexuality sometimes is a more important indicator of who a person is, that can override the assumptions made when creating this model:

"Bisexuality in male teleiophiles raises a special problem for the bipolar model. The phallometric responses of bisexual teleiophiles could be plotted against an X-axis like that used in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. The phallometric profile should be V-shaped or U-shaped. Such a profile could not, however, be described by the bipolar model equation; it would require the summation model equation. This would be a limitation for the bipolar model; how serious a limitation depends on the proportion of self-reported bisexual teleiophiles who actually produce V-shaped or U-shaped phallometric profiles."

And with 'shemales' as well. Probably pre-op trans women or NB people.

"There is at least one other class of men whose existence is unquestioned, and whose behavior cannot be explained by the bipolar model. Those are the gynandromorphophiles, men who are sexually attracted to those individuals colloquially known as “she-males.” She-males are biological males who have partially feminized their bodies with estrogenic hormones or breast implants but have not undergone surgical modification of the genitals, thus creating the appearance of a woman with a penis (Blanchard & Collins, 1993)."

So again here, even the guys writing this paper use some qualitative evidence evidence to override the assumptions they've made on the basis of their bipolar model of human sexuality, and a lot of that evidence is looking at performative aspects of human sexuality, which include testimony, which is actually interesting. I think that paper is worth a read. I'll put a reference at the bottom of this post for you. It's a mark of the time that blanchard made his research in, that this attraction is classified as a disease and that the discussion of it's origin is referred to as etiology! Another way that our society otherises and problematizes trans people. This is a very dated view of human sexuality, imo. I can't wait to dive deeper into this, though, it's very interesting.



So all in all, I'd say, a really interesting read, but not evidence for testimony being unreliable. It specifically illustrates some of the ways in which testimony has invaluable utility in holistically understanding sexuality, and how testimony is absolutely needed to criticize and examine models based only on operationalizing and quantitatively examining sexuality. As long as you remember that people can only relate to you what they themselves have a declarative semantic understanding of, and which they feel comfortable disclosing, there's a wealth of knowledge here, the validity of which, should not be ignored by anyone.

BLANCHARD, R., & COLLINS, P. I. (1993). Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181(9), 570-575. doi:10.1097/00005053-199309000-00008

 No.1294

File: 1565752325416.jpg (17.48 KB, 494x353, 494:353, 1446698610063.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1121
Sorry for the long delay in responding.  I got a bit overwhelmed with work IRL.

Yeah, the study has its flaws.  And I'm not saying a person's self-report of their sexual turn-ons is useless.  But I still think that self-reporting is likely to give an incomplete picture, due to (1) subconscious factors that the person isn't consciously aware of and (2) denial of stigmatized sexual preferences (such as even a small degree of sexual attraction to prepubescent girls) either due to deliberate lying or internalized self-lying.

Of course, lab measurements are also incomplete due to factors you mention such as:
>Like, imagine if images just don't do it for you. What if you're a person that needs to be touched or to feel certain things from your partner.
So the best way to try to get as complete a picture as possible it probably to combine self-reporting with lab measurements, because they can each pick up things that the other misses.

>"There is at least one other class of men whose existence is unquestioned, and whose behavior cannot be explained by the bipolar model. Those are the gynandromorphophiles, men who are sexually attracted to those individuals colloquially known as “she-males.” She-males are biological males who have partially feminized their bodies with estrogenic hormones or breast implants but have not undergone surgical modification of the genitals, thus creating the appearance of a woman with a penis (Blanchard & Collins, 1993)."
Hmm, I guess I'm kinda a gynandromorphophile.  I'm attracted to feminine secondary sexual characteristics regardless of whether there is an accompanying penis.  I took a quick skim of the article you cited, and I'll give it a more thorough perusal when i get some more free time.

 No.1311


>>1294
No worries, I'm glad you're taking the time.
>So the best way to try to get as complete a picture as possible it probably to combine self-reporting with lab measurements, because they can each pick up things that the other misses.
I would agree with this, if you're a scientist, or coming at it from a theoretical angle with that kind of interest, and trying to generalize.

But if you're just a layman, trying to get a better feel for the person you're with right now, or for the dating scene, I would whole-heartedly reccomend the old-fashioned approach of just asking.

>gynandromorphile
You know, to be honest, like I was talking about before as well, I really dislike this language they use to describe the phenomenom? I think we will find better words for describing this sort of thing, at some point. I'm also attracted to trans women, whether post or pre-op, but I feel like this is kind of just natural for heterosexual men. Like, I think the average person will just have this tendency to be attracted to this. It seems weird to medicalize the attraction. Almost dehumanizing, and definitely othering.

 No.1313

>>1311
>I really dislike this language they use to describe the phenomenom.

I think people have a unfortunate hostility towards clinical terminology, but i think it's the best way to do things. It might even be an extension of unfortunate anti-intellectualism that seem to be all the rage these days.

 No.1314

File: 1566002945400.jpg (141.93 KB, 1280x854, 640:427, snake-banana.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1311
>Almost dehumanizing, and definitely othering.
Hmm, I don't get that connotation.  To me, "gynandromorphile" just mashes together a bunch of morphemes that together give a vague sense of what the word means and helps us remember it.  

 No.1315

>>1313
mmm, no. I'm like, the most self-absorbed intellectual out there, for better or for worse. This has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism, I intellectualized myself into that opinion.

>>1314
Yeah, that's kind of the problem.

You don't describe people in neo-greek slapdash, if you're trying to genuinely understand and empathize with them. It's a way to put them in little boxes. And it's not even a very good box for the purposes they're describing. It's both way too specific and way too general. It includes things they don't want to study, and excludes many they should consider. The study would be much better suited by adopting more humanizing and specific terminology, but they can't do that, because they have physics envy or something.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]