Groundbreaking research on sexual desire

• Men are focused on external cues: specifically their partner's intrinsic qualities and behaviors. Women are focused on internal cues as much as external: are they hungry, cold, worried, horny-on-their-own... stuff that doesn't affect males nearly as much.
• Gay men aren't interested in shemale porn at all. Straight males are.
• Men are more interested in penises than women, describe them more lavishly in the fiction they write, seek them out specifically on pron sites. Women don't look at male's junk as much as other males, and when they describe them at all it's either in terms of emotion or in terms of "blood flooding there". Men don't think of the penis in blood terms.
• Men are interested in a few specific body parts. Busts first, penis second... I don't remember the full list, but gay men show the same preferences as straight ones.
• Women's libido cares a lot more about a man's status and leadership and pro-activity and confidence than men's.
• Women pay a lot of attention to each other's opinions. The fan-fiction community is a place where this expresses itself. women's erotica is a social enterprise, men's is a solitary enterprise. Men are more attractive to an individual woman the more other women show attraction to them. Loners are automatically unattractive.
• The Male Sexual Brain responds to single stimuli (OR gate). Female is AND gate. Physical arousal in men is synonymous with mental arousal, but in women it's dissociated.
• Erotical illusions: Optical illusions happen when the low-res and hig-res parts of a perception give contradictory information to the brain about the same element. Sexual illusions are the same, and that's why so many straight males are interested in shemale porn, which is a textbook erotical illusion: female body part cues + penis (important cue to trigger male sexual interest)= bingo. Kinda the same way Girl on Girl Is Hot works. At first all shemale was with actual trans actors, but then artists started drawing it and selecting the cues a lot better:
  • Young women
  • Busty
  • Small feet
  • Always with a very large package down below.

In fact pornographists have found out they don't have to use actual shemales. Busty women with very realistic strap-ons do the trick just the same if not better. Erotical illusions for men don't work for women and vice versa. Try the opposite:

• Big man
• Bald head
• Burly muscles, tatoos
• Badass Beard
• And a vagina

There's an FTM pornstar who fits this description. Het women aren't interested. Gay dudes are. Because male cues do not work like female cues.

• Now for the case of Edward Cullen and the ridiculously prolific sub-genre of paranormal romance novels. Edward fits female cues.
  • 100-year-old: experienced, confident
  • Hot teenage body.
  • All the girls in that school want him
  • But he only has eyes for youBella
  • He physically, socially and intellectually dominates every male around. Especially dangerous ones.
  • He's pretty dominant among other vampires as well.
  • Endless desire without consummation. It's very teenagey but it also works for older women.

• Slash: another erotical illusion. Two powerful attractive males share emotional moments and maybe sex, but the emotional side is the most important. Especially them sharing their tender side with each other. It's very distinct from erotica written by gay men. Also Girl on Girl Is Hot is focused on the physical and literally doesn't give a fuck about characterization, motivations, emotion.

• Same sex couples are more satisfied with sex than heterosexual ones. Apparently it's about sharing cues and being familiar with the anatomy. Maybe.

• Male sexual interests are formed between 12 and 22, and are mostly fixed for life. Female sexuality is much more fluid and adaptable. A male is interested in a healthy body capable of having children. A healthy woman is a thing that doesn't change. A female looks for a provider. The signals that determine a provider vary a lot by culture and age. It's also the reason it depends on other female's opinion: it's very hard to figure out a male. The female brain is generally more sophisticated because it has to do tons of longterm calculations.

• Men are universally interested in smaller-than-average feet. The reason? Something to do with estrogen, which has to do with fertility, both have to do with healthy body, enough food, etc. Big feet might indicate infertility. Maybe.

• BDSM and kinks. BDSM: we all come wired to prefer dominance or submission. Men come wired to like dominance. A very large minority prefers being submissive. There's a part of the brain that controls this, in both males and females. Gay men are much more likely to enjoy being sexually submissive. Gay interests, gay pornography, are in general very similar to their straight equivalents.

edited 12th Nov '11 9:55:31 AM by PacificState

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Is this groundbreaking? It gets more of a "well, duh" reaction from me.

Futanari, and/or Dickgirls are the respective terms, I believe.

I think "shemales" is used exclusively to refer to sex-industry professionals who are transwomen. Dickgirls is also a common term, but the speaker didn't mention it for some reason. Futanari is used exclusively to refer to the drawn versions, at least on the anglosphere.

It's groundbreaking because they've actually researched it (something nobody did rigorously since the fifties), and because it explains why some stuff works, and how common it actually is. You know, a friend told me once she found shemale porn at her friend's dad's computer. She had immediately judged and classified him as a freak and a creep. Which is a harsh thing to do. But I had no better counterargument than "It takes all sorts to make a world". Now I can tell her: "It's actually rather common, and this is why." Perhaps it might erase that scowl from her face.

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Yeaaaaaah... I highly doubt foot size has anything at all to do with fertility. (Certainly my own mom has small feet but had very low fertility.)

The more likely explanation is that it's just related to height, if anything; the taller you are, the more useful big feet are for balance purposes.

If there's a reason why men like small feet, it probably has to do with them being child-like and thus indicators of youthfulness, not actual direct fertility.

Also, now I'm wondering if the reason why men are so uptight about not being seen as gay is because they're so obsessed with penises even when straight...

edited 12th Nov '11 10:12:28 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

So... writing about cock = more female and male readers?

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...

Er, no, what I meant was that high estrogen levels were caused by healthy diet and stuff. These estrogens simulatneously correlate with both fertility and small feet. That tall women are more or less attractive than short women isn't mentioned at all. Made me think of Bayonetta

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

@Pacific State

A healthy diet usually makes you grow taller, though.

I suppose I could see it being possible that estrogens counteract that by retarding growth, but it just seems weird. There isn't any indication I know of that smaller women are any more fertile than taller ones.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Erm, this is "In general", right? :/

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ

Yes, this is an "in general" thing.

"This thread has gone so far south it's surrounded by nesting penguins. " — Madrugada

I wear size 48 shoes.

I am the god Pan reborn!

Seriously now, some of that sounds a little silly. Then again, most of it sounds pretty obvious, which I guess could mean that it's actually right.

edited 12th Nov '11 10:34:25 AM by InsomniacWeasel

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent."

There's live-action futa as well.

Fair enough, common knowledge is one thing, scientific rigour another.

Given the sheer amount of it (shemale porn), I'd say it's very common. And no, I doubt your friend will be comforted by this.

Guess what youthfulness indicates.

edited 12th Nov '11 10:42:38 AM by GreatLich

Huh. Reminds me a lot of something commonly seen in hentai where women get wet even though they are... uhm, perhaps not entirely into it.

Thank yoouuuu I've been arguing this for forever now

Not about shemales per se, but about... stuff.

@Great Lich

Actual youthfulness indicates fertility. But simply appearing youthful when you're actually not doesn't mean a damn thing in an actual sense as opposed to an aesthetic one.

Basically, small feet might make you appear superficially young, but they still have zero effect on your actual fertility, even as an indicator.

edited 12th Nov '11 10:49:09 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Lesbian erasure and sweeping generalizations based on fuzzy internet data - the sexiest thing of all?

edited 12th Nov '11 10:54:38 AM by Penguin4Senate

@Great Lich

That doesn't make the connection any less incorrect.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Yeah, but it's still a practical and useful connection to make.

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

@Pacific State

Uh, how so? If it's not correct, that by definition means it's useless and impractical.

I mean, most of the list you posted makes sense, but I honestly can't see how foot size has anything at all to do with fertility. Shorter women are not more fertile than larger women. Even my youthful thing was more a wild guess, really; I don't know if it's actually the case.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Foot size relative to the body, I guess, not absolute foot size. But incorrect shortcuts in judgement are still useful. Let me give you an example. Expecting bears to attack humans on sight is very unfair. Only 20% of human-bear encounters end up with the bear reacting aggressively. It's an incorrect assumption. Nevertheless it is still very useful, because unfairness doesn't matter before the chance of being mauled by a bear.

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

I would like some sources for these statements you're putting forth. It's not like finger length being connected to your sexual orientation is an obvious thing either, so why should this be any less true?

edited 12th Nov '11 11:33:02 AM by CDRW

Let's just say that correlation is not causation, but may imply a common cause.

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

@CDRW

Mainly because this is the first time I've ever heard about anything implying height in women correlates with fertility in any way at all. Plus, like I said, usually the healthier your are, the taller you are, so if fertility also increases with healthiness, you'd expect larger women to be more fertile, which means that larger feet would indicate higher fertility.

Or, to sum up, [citation needed] for this one, as far as I'm concerned. It makes zero logical sense right now.

edited 12th Nov '11 11:38:41 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

That's got its limitations, though. Remeber the Square-Cube Law and André The Giant.

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

@Pacific State

Yes, but I'm assuming that by larger feet we're talking just the upper limits of normal human range, not medically abnormal larger feet.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Oh god, Ogi Ogas? Do not listen to anything he says. He's an absolute charlatan.

Needless to say, you absolutely shouldn't rely him for any sort of expertise, given that he (and Sai Gaddam, if you ever run across him) hasn't gotten even the scientific method itself down yet, let alone any degree of rigor.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1