/sci/ - Science & Math

Your friend is very intelligent.

Women are the same as men as they're both people, you fucking retard.

Sexuality works the same way.

human sexuality is not a binary value, but rather something much closer to a continuum.

all people are bisexual to varying degrees

Check facebook.

All women are either Lesbians or Bisexual.

There are no straight women.

Trufax.

>>2640281
Explain why I like men more than women, smart bottom.

>>2640284
Because your weak mind is unable to resist peer pressure.

>>2640284
You're conflating non-sexual-arousal related factors with those factors which actually determine sexual orientation. You are probably aroused the same amount by male and female homosexual sex scenes.

>>2640284
becouse your a faggot, derp.

>>2640284

Faggot.

hurr *make unqualified claims about sexuality* durr....hurr post such shit on /sci/ durr...hurr repeat this every four hours durr...

>>2640288
I don't get off on lesbian sex at all. I find it gross.

That's some chauvinist stereotype. The assumption is that women have sex for entirely different reason than men, i.e. to please others and for social networking rather than for pleasure. So they're capable of loving men or women. Yeah, I know that sounds retarded but this is what people think.

>>2640319
Is it true?

yeah women have sex with other women when they can't find a guy they like
To them masturbation is like not an option

"Your friend" as in that dumbass in the trans thread? Fuck off and do your own research.

>>2640345
I masturbate with a rubber dildo.

For some biological reason women are more open with sexuality.

>>2640359
Still doesn't make them a certain sexuality tho.

>>2640353
I'm not a dumbass and I fucking told you all off on your bullshit logic.

>>2640358
Yeah but us guys can go years without having sex
Even if we don't want to <_<

>>What is Sexual Orientation and Do Women Have One
>>J. Micheal Bailey
>The category specific male sexual arousal pattern is the primary sexual motivation that directs male sexual activity to certain kinds of individuals (most often women, but sometimes men) rather than others. Indeed, I content that a man's category specific male sexual arousal pattern IS his sexual orientation. Most women lack this strong directional motivation, and so it is not surprising that their sexual behavior is more malleable and sexually fluid. . .I review research on the male sexual arousal pattern and argue for equating sexual arousal pattern with sexual orientation.

If women were men they would be Bi, but this isn't really accurate/complete, as Male and Female sexuality is fundamentally different, and applying male sexual dichotomy to women is rather misplaced.

>>2640366
csb

>>2640371
Isn't that backwards?
>>2640372
If it's not accurate. Why fucking post it?

>>2640353
i'm trans and that thread made me want to throw my computer out of the window. /sci/ what the fuck is wrong with you guys? all these threads like "hurrr how u homosex?" really?!

Everyone is bisexual to some degree. Men and women.

>>2640359
It's probably not a biological reason, more a cultural reason.

>>2640390
Really?
You'd be willing to stick your dick in another guys hairy butthole?

>>2640274
>>2640278
>>Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men
>. . .In general, bisexual men did not have strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli. Rather, most bisexual men appeared homosexual with respect to genital arousal, although some appeared heterosexual

>>2640366
>male and female sexuality is the same

>>2640375
Wtf is csb?

>>2640396
>in general
>strong sexual arousal
>implying they were still aroused by the less preferred gender

>>2640396
bisexual men are men that are stuck in the closet

>>2640390
That's unfalsifiable. While true that most people are not completely hetero or homo, that sort of claim reminds me of the old platitude "everyone has his price." Perhaps everyone has a situation in which attraction to either gender is possible, but the question seems somewhat unscientific.
>>2640394
You can describe any sexual activity in such a way as to make it seem gross. For one, if we're considering hairy assholes, then why not hairy vaginas as well? Both genders have about equal amounts of hair down there unless they do something about it. Furthermore, homosexual feelings don't automatically translate into desire for anal sex.

>>2640384
In terms of male sexuality, women ARE Bi. 'All women are bi' is inaccurate in that people fail to appreciate the inherent differences between male and female sexuality and apply meaning that's not there.

All humans are bi.
D.e.a.l.w.i.t.h.i.t.

Can I please have some facts not opinions?

Thank you.

>>2640396
That study is nothing like definitive. Genital blood-flow as a measure of desire or arousal has been called into question on multiple occasions because it's a doubly indirect measure of a psychological phenomenon. There are other problems, including the selection of stimuli. As I bisexual myself, I'd note that bisexuals tend to have a somewhat different aesthetic taste than either heterosexuals or homosexuals (preferring more androgynous bodies, usually).

>>2640372
yeah bailey has been known to make a lot of baseless claims about sexuality based on plethysmography. never mind that it's a completely outdated and unreliable measure.

>>2640456
Bailey J? As in linetrap?

>>2640416
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_erasure

>>2640477
mindfuck

>>2640456
>photoplethysmography
>out modded

>>2640482
Its true
Bisexuality has no biological explanation
The only way it could happen is if somebody had a 50/50 dose of estrogen and testosterone when they were in the fetal stage

>>2640512
That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam, besides which you have a much too deterministic (and objectively false) view of the causes of sexual orientation.

>>2640451
>>2640456
What did we learn from Ten Thousand Years of philosophic naval gazing? NOTHING!

What did we learn from One Hundred and Fifty Years of Psychology asking people questions? NOTHING!

What did we learn in Mere Years of Hard-Core Empirical Science? EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE HUMAN MIND!

>>2640520
Sexual orientation is biological
If you're able to go agaisnt your nature is because your psychologically changing things in your head somehow

>>2640524
red herring

>>2640527
"sexual orientation is biologically determined, and if it isn't that's not your REAL sexual orientation"
no true Scotsman

your 'sexual orientation' is restricted to only a small fraction of people, even if you are bisexual, because neither gays or heteros are attracted to children.

>>2640528
red haring? Fuck You

You want to go back to the bad old days of subjective psychology so you can gloss over some inconvenient truths? Get your ass to >>>/x/ with the rest of the pseudoscience trash

>>2640372
He lumps transsexuals into one category. Does that mean gay trans men exhibit a similar pattern to gay cis men, straight trans men similar to straight cis men etc.? Bailey always refers to trans people by their birth gender. He thinks trans women and men exhibit behaviors more similar to their birth assigned gender. He's an essentialist basically. So if he's being consistent in the (condescending, inaccurate) way he classifies trans people he undermines his own hypothesis that all women have this similar pattern of arousal. Actually I have noticed a lot of times that he pretends FTM transsexuals don't exist, so maybe that's the case here. Right? I'm so confused.

>>2640555
ad hominem + straw man

>>2640561
Wtf is an ad hominem and a straw man?

>>2640560
And why would he lump transsexuals into one category anyway, that's methodologically inconsistent. He's supposed to be looking at gender-specific patterns of sexual arousal but he makes their trans status the primary characteristic. Here is one category that's unrelated to the other two. What?

>>2640560
FtM trannies, their inclusion was to show that cat. specific sexual arousal could be measured on people without dicks

How did this subject get onto the topic of gender identity?

Jesus fuck, sexuality has nothing to do with identity disorders.

>>2640581
goddamn

Serious question, are you purposefully miss interpreting incredibly simple shit so you don't have to face the truth, or are you really this dumb?

Actually, I've heard that women fantasize about the same sex way, way, way more than men. (If you're looking at ratios.)

>>2640266
DNA related data seducing homosexuality?
Hmmmm. . .
Me thinks it's a cultural brainwash. FtM stuff is totally ID
From a sociological point of view you could observe that homosexuals gain a large amount of female appreciation from being gay. And social notoriety on top of that. Men are partly driven by the feeling of being appreciated. Humanity as a whole seeks understanding and acceptance in some way. Culturally men who have a taste for something labeled as feminine are labeled as homosexuals. If anything, this cultural training has gotten worse over time. Thus more gay men, more women appreciating them.

>>2640601
>FtM
Opps

"Trans Women"
MtF, not FtM

>>2640601
Well trans men can have vaginas or or surgically created penises. So it's pre-op/non-op trans men? Okay. If what you're saying is true he's blatantly contradicting his other work though.
>>2640619
No, I think this needs clarification. Is he talking about sexuality, or gender? If the latter why include the category "transsexuals"? And are sexuality and gender the same? And why not divide it into trans men and trans women? Doesn't make sense.

>>2640675
Oh, that makes more sense. But as someone else said there are problems with using blood flow as a measure of arousal.

There is a transwoman who recently started working at my office building and all of the guys are in love with her. How should I treat her/him?

>>2640680
>Doesn't make sense.
The trannies were included ONLY TO SHOW that cat. specific sexual arousal could be measured on people without dicks

>>2640685
In what way is Photoplethysmography an inadequate method to measure arousal? Oh, I see, it produces results you don't like.

For a couple of people insisting that everyone is a unique and beautiful snowflake, you two seem to be spending an awful lot of time demanding women conform to male sexual patterns and norms.

>>2640735
Well, for one thing vaginal plethysmography is an entirely different animal in terms of interpreting the signals. Increased blood flow doesn't necessarily, in this case, mean increased sexual attraction. The results could simply be an artifact of bias. It has been shown as a completely invalid measure in the case of neovaginas, which is why the inclusion of mtf transsexuals is kind of problematic.

I'm going to have to agree with your friend, OP. I would guess that it has something to do with the functional role of human sexuality. The hormone levels of women make them aroused much more than men, and on a primitive level they just feel the need to be fucked, doesn't matter by who. So for a woman to be as attractive as possible to men, of course she is going to attract other women as well. Her body is designed to release hormone levels so she can get fucked by anyone. Men on the other hand, don't need to fuck other men because unless they have a hormone imbalance, they aren't designed to attract everyone around them, so it's a nonissue.

>>2640804
>I'm going to have to agree with your friend, OP.

And you're just as retarded as your friend and that one retard in the previous trans-thread.

>>2640804
What is your name? o.O

>>2640812
f u

>>2640815
charles

>>2640780
>Increased blood flow doesn't necessarily, in this case, mean increased sexual attraction.
This is why viagra discontinued testing in women. There is a huge mental element of arousal, especially in women, that is being overlooked (you know the saying, men think with their dicks). Blood flow is an indirect measure, and it doesn't always correlate with people's subjective experiences of attraction. In these cases individuals are assumed by people like Bailey to be "lying" about it; they are entirely discounted because they don't match an untestable assumption, rather than their experience being evidence that the assumption is flawed. This is fallacious.

>>2640835
>charles

Holy fuck. My friend's name is Charles. O_O

>>2640396
looks like a penis wearing a hard hat

>>2640901
well my name isnt actually charles. im not your buddy, friend. I'm not your friend, guy. I'm not your guy, buddy.

ARE ALL WOMEN BISEXUAL OR NOT?!!!!!!

God fucking damn it!!!

>>2640931
>>2640835

Not samefag.

>>2640934
Every things not black and white. All individuals have varying degrees of sexuality
Thankfully math and science is, to my knowledge, black and white. oP you are cancer and I hate you

>>2640934
Some of them are. Some of them are straight, some lesbian, or something else entirely. Sexual orientation is something social, it's about who you RELATE to. This is entirely different from arousal which is a state of being (rather than a relation or orientation) that often is correlated to certain physiological responses to stimuli, but surprisingly often isn't (so just because women might experience increased bloodflow in reaction to certain nostandardized stimuli, doesn't mean they're somehow inherently attracted to men and women).

>>2640958
I am aroused by sucking dicks yet I don't find myself attracted to men unless they have a wonderfully personality. What is the matter with me?

>>2640780
>>2640846
Christ, grasping at straws much?

>This is why viagra discontinued testing in women
Sidenafil(and similar drugs) work in women when the sexual dysfunction is caused by an inability to achieve genital engorgement

>vaginal PPG is invalid [citation needed]
Again with the allegation that photoplethysmography is incapable of measuring sexual arousal in women. Physical arousal highly analogous in men and women, and without good sources to the contrary I see no reason to believe it can't be used to measure sexual arousal in women.
>The results could simply be an artifact of bias
What type of bias, specifically? Ascertainment bias was investigated in "A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal" and found not to be an issue.

>subjective experience
You know this doesn't actually help your argument much, right?
>>their subjective arousal to female-female stimuli
was twice their subjective arousal to male-male stimuli [ibid]

>people's subjective experiences of attraction. In these cases individuals are assumed by people like Bailey to be "lying" about it

You tip your hand, your opposition to PPG has nothing to do with a honest belief that it's invalid method, and everything to do with it being an OBJECTIVE method.

>untestable assumption
says the man who views subjective assessment as the only valid means of investigation.

Lastly, shut-it with the fucking trannies, this thread is not about fucking transsexualism

>>2640934
see:>>2640372 and >>2640438
short answer: yes

>>2640958
Women lack sexual orientation(it's also not social)

It should be noted that the PPG arousal data is quite consistent with female sexual behavior in the population at large, it's retarded to try to hand-wave it away as some instrumental fluke

>>2640995
>Physical arousal highly analogous in men and women, and without good sources to the contrary I see no reason to believe it can't be used to measure sexual arousal in women.

Sorry but that's just not the case. Some studies find it to be analogous, others find it to be totally dissimilar. If you say otherwise you're full of shit. Don't go all [citation needed] on me, I'm not doing your legwork. This is not some controversial statement.

>You tip your hand, your opposition to PPG has nothing to do with a honest belief that it's invalid method, and everything to do with it being an OBJECTIVE method.

Well, no, my point was entirely that it isn't objective. Not sure how you missed that.

>says the man who views subjective assessment as the only valid means of investigation.

No, but I don't think it bodes well when you write off anyone who challenges your (I think I said "untestable" but "subjective" would work) assumptions as being deceptive.

>Lastly, shut-it with the fucking trannies, this thread is not about fucking transsexualism

Transsexualism is imminently relevant to the ARTICLE which was posted, which had a definite (negative) impact on research around transsexualism. Also saying tranny is kind of akin to saying faggot.

>Ascertainment bias was. . . found not to be an issue.
Wow they found that bias wasn't an issue in their own study! I don't buy it. Sorry to bring up those god damn trannies again (because they aren't, you know, a critical component of the study) but they basically select subjects for these tests by withholding treatment (e.g. letters for SRS) if they don't participate. Now that's fucked up on many different levels but to claim bias isn't an issue here is ridiculous.

>>2641004
>It should be noted that the PPG arousal data is quite consistent with female sexual behavior in the population at large,

Wait what? So if women who have always identified as heterosexual and engaged in heterosexual relationships show response to female stimuli, that's consistent with sexual behavior? I don't... This thread has lost me.

>>2640974
It's natural to like dicks regardless of your gender or sexuality.

>Women lack sexual orientation(it's also not social)
essentialism! i think this idea of classifying people's desires into static clearly delineated categories is very much social and unique to a particular kind of society. and the idea that you can determine someone's desires based on some shallow metric without any regards to the complex of factors which go into shaping attraction, and if they disagree they're lying or in denial, that's unique to reductionist crackpots

>>2641004
Then what are women who identify as heterosexual? Am I being trolled?

Lrn2 Kinsey Scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

Are women solely bisexual?

let me guess: your friend is a guy, and he is dreaming out loud

///////////////////

there's differences between males and females brains in every species, and so far, there is also differences between straight and homosexual brains for a given species.

So sorry, you have no choice---
you can "act" homo but what you really desire is whatever your brain is wired for

I have no cite but have read that animals that have gender-specific brain development prevented, are not bi-sexual; they lack interest in BOTH sexes. So far there is no physiological evidence that it is possible to have an equal-but-strong desire for both sexes at all.

>>2641372

I don't get it sometimes.
I like women, specially dominant women. But in all my life, I have met a couple of guys I would totally let them fuck me in the ass.

So what? It doesn't make a difference how you label yourself. If you are an heterosexual guy, would you fuck ANY girl? Fuck no.

I would say that we are all bisexual, but have a set of preferences, are easily met by one sex than another.

>>2641417
Thiis is retarded.

Can you prove that homosexual men are attracted and aroused to women? There's 0 evidence for this.

Also, there's not much evidence to say hetero men are atracted/aroused to other men. So quit spouting baseless claims. If you don't have evidence, call your statement speculation or opinion or keep silent.

>>2641434
I'll put it simple.
If you like big muscled bodies covered in hair, you are more likely to find this kind of features on a...

Now work out the rest. But that relates only to the physical part. Arousal is in the end a mental factor. Once I got aroused as FUCK when a girl I was not really interested in when she told me howshe cheated her boss to sign her a paper that pretty much uncovered all the shit she had to endure.

Aslo, you mad?

no...thats a lie!

>quotes 0 evidence
>writes some subjective crap instead

>>2641443

>quotes 0 evidence
>writes some subjective crap instead

>>2640266
Op, I don't think all women are bisexual, but all women are actually boys.

>>2641042
>This is not some controversial statement.

Yes, it is
Sexual arousal is analogous on a fundamental biological basis, this is not some wishy-washy soft science here, this is bonesaw-and-electrodes capital 'S' motherfucking Science.

>hurr bias
Claims of bias are not a get-out-of-science-free card.

The standard objection to vaginal PPG is that only eviiiilll hell-bound sluts volunteer(slight hyperbole, but only slight) and thus the data is inapplicable to 'normal' women. The study investigated this by surveying a group of volunteers and analyzing whether the behavioral differences between subjects and non-subjects could account for the lack of cat. spec. sexual arousal, it couldn't.

>which had a definite (negative) impact on research around transsexualism.
Good Science only has a Scientific Impact, your butthurt over reality is irrelevant to Truth
>Also saying tranny is kind of akin to saying faggot.
offensive shit on 4chan? My God! Stop the Presses!

>>2641080
>So if women who have always identified as heterosexual and engaged in heterosexual relationships show response to female stimuli, that's consistent with sexual behavior?

You can't be this dense

The rates of homosexual behavior in 'straight' women, the rates of heterosexual behavior in 'gay' women, are consistent with the lack of cat. spec. sexual arousal(ie Sexual Orientation)

This cannot to hand-waved away by baselessly asserting that this is the result of socialization, because this type of behavior is NOT SEE in gay men(unless you want to argue that men are less heavily socialized to want to fuck women then women are, but this is of course absurd)

90+ posts on an incredibly simple scientific topic

first, pick your definition of sexuality:
1.behavior
2.arousal

if 1, then the answer is no.
if 2, then the answer is EVERYONE, women and men alike, is bisexual.

this is basic shit people, why u no understand?.jpg
/thread

>>2641203
>Kinsey scale
Kinsey Sexual Fantasy scores in 'straight' women are not only inconsistent with genital arousal, but inconsistent with subjective assessment of arousal

>All the women reported having sexual feelings almost exclusively toward men; their mean Kinsey Sexual Fantasy score was 0.1 (SD = 0.1). . .subjective arousal to female-female stimuli was twice their subjective arousal to male-male stimuli

>>2641417
>I would say that we are all bisexual
The data does not support this position.

1)Genital PPG(Photoplethysmography) reports strong category specific sexual arousal(CSSA) in men, but no CSSA in women. This can not be explained by socialization as gay men show CSSA, just towards men instead of women.

2)Behavioral data, namely homosexual activity in 'straight' women, and heterosexual activity in 'gay' women. Again, this can't be explained by socialization as (again) we would expect to observe the same behavior in gay men(which we don't)

ARE ALL WOMEN BISEXUAL OR NOT?!!!

/b/ says nay?

I'm a bisexual male.

Deal with it.

>>2643670
>>2643670
>/b/tards
well there you go

Short Answer: Yes, women are bisexual

Long Answer:

It's probably better to split sexual orientation and 'romantic orientation/preference'(if you will). That is, women are bisexual and/or lack sexual orientation(essentially the same thing, just depends on how we define it), while possessing a 'romantic orientation/preference'. So a 'straight' woman is more likely to fuck a woman than engage in a relationship with a woman, a 'gay' woman is more likely to fuck a man than engage in a relationship with a man. Men are essentially the reverse, possessing a ridged sexual orientation and no 'romantic orientation/preference', i.e. they get into relationships because they want to fuck the person.

>>2643979
rigid*