Groundbreaking research on sexual desire

While I am more than willing to accept the possibility that the man is a charlatan, I'm less than impressed with your sources claiming such.

I think these guys understand sexuality a lot better, and in such simple terms, too! (NSFW language inside)

/Joking mode

@Merlo, last page: Uh, not quite. Quite a few guys can get alienated by focusing on the penis, I think.

Then again, preference in erotic stuff tends to vary, I believe.

edited 12th Nov '11 12:28:25 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

I think there's a factor of imagining yourself in the big-penised guy's place, as a form of Wish-Fulfillment.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

@Black Humor + Page Opener: ... I am now confused

edited 12th Nov '11 1:17:19 PM by PacificState

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

I'd like to believe this guy's a fake, since I'd like to believe I'm not a total freak of nature. Then again, at this point, I'm starting to get used to being a freak.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Wow. That is quite an interesting list. Who did the research?

Who watches the watchmen?

Wow, all of this is BS to me. Honestly. So much of I do not agree with, just from doing research and talking to people I know, as well as knowing myself.

With research on any topic, I realized throughout my studies of the social sciences...just how easy it is to not technically lie, but stack the statistics in your favour through various means (biased selection of people interviewed for example).

I know for me personally, I do not like futanari and I am perfectly capable of judging attractiveness by physical, mental and emotional standards; be it separately or all at once. Additionally, I do not "like" small feet, short women or things that imply fertility other than the Buxom Is Better trope. I could go on about what I do like, but the point is...I do not fit most of the "research" and I know many others who don't either.

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

I've read this in a magazine earlier this year. Is it not legit then? In what way, is it in the way that his conclusions are false or in the way that his confirmations of them illegitimate and the premises went back to the hypotheses bin?

The leading news printed back then were 1) how men likes to play with the age of women, and the searches for older-women smut are just as prevalent as youthful ones; and 2) cuckold is evolutionary sound ("sperm competition"). Not sure if it's reflected in the presentation, OP doesn't post about these topics. *

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

"Loners are automatically unattractive."

Has this moron never seen a Hollywood movie? Yes, there are creepy loners we like to stay away from, and then there are the Philip Marlowe types whom women trip over themselves to fuck.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Give Geeks a Chance? That trope is bullshit. I was talking about sexual loners, people who have spent massive time without getting any, and thus have no-one to vouch for them.

Here's some tough love: generalizing from one example, and from that example's entourage, does not contradict, a priori, the conclusions of a research of greater scope. The general conclusions a research of this sort can find are just that, general averages, and you should expect people not to fit every single criterium, if any at all.

edited 12th Nov '11 10:26:47 PM by PacificState

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

No, I'm not talking about giving geeks a chance. I'm talking about how a loner who appears self-sufficient and, to a degree, mysterious is highly attractive, provided that he is not physically undesirable.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Then there's been a misuderstanding. Obviously your loner, unlike mine, is assumed to easily engage people if they only try. Also some degree of social interaction is necessary to just display mysteriousness.

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

Since when does someone need to vouch for you for being a good (or bad) person to have a sexual relatioship with? People are not in High School the whole of their life, and not everybody cares about that kind of social validation, especially adults.

As for the guy's research, either I am a total sexual anomaly - most of the male-specific things don't do much for me, however the so-called "female-exclusive" ones hit a lot of sweet spots - or the guy is generalizing human sexual behaviour based on a very limited sampling of people who are into watching porn. Which is bad scientific practice.

"That said, as I've mentioned before, apart from the helmet, he's not exactly bad looking, if a bit...blood-drenched." - juancarlos

I would always be automatically sceptical of people who tell you at great length what you already probably think is "common sense" anyway, simply because it's such an obvious way to make money off you as a "guru" of some kind. Having said that, I can't claim the expertise/knowledge to outright say this is all wrong.

I am inclined to go along with the "women like confidence" and the "women go for men with a 'track record'" bit, simply because that's the story of my life. But then, I'm not female, and as I say, if the guy was trying to pull a fast one, he'd of course be telling me what I felt to be true anyway.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

I know that fourth criterion is incorrect; men look at faces first, not breasts. Plus, I'm an ass man myself.

As a Camp Straight male, I can completely empathize with that. Then again, my brain is anomalous in more ways than one, even accounting for Special Snowflake Syndrome bias.

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

"Also some degree of social interaction is necessary to just display mysteriousness."

How do you figure?

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

@ Pacific State

Whoa, you seem to be ticked off at me. "Tough love", really? As a social sciences student, I get what you mean but my point is that not everyone will fit their research...you even said so when you said "The general conclusions a research of this sort can find are just that, general averages, and you should expect people not to fit every single criterium, if any at all." So by agreeing with you, I get "tough love". What? Anyways, I don't want to discuss this too much farther as I don't want a war.

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

Well said. I'm sick of people who act like their little personal anecdotes refute research into averages.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

@Hidden Faced Matt

Conversely, it's kind of irritating being told something is the norm, when neither you nor anyone you know actually fits it. Especially when it's used as an excuse to belittle or dismiss any issues or concerns you experience as a result.

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

@ Hidden Faced Matt

I understand that my own personal experiences are not the norm. What I am saying is that someone could do the exact same study and get different results with different people.

I would go so far as to say there is no "norm". Did that study survey every human on the planet? It ticks me off when people think they can create something that is considered "normal" for everyone. There is no "normal", there can be "averages", but those "averages" are for those studied...not everyone.

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

Eh. Isn't that kind of emotionally-charged defense rather... misplaced, if used to counter a research, even if it's a flawed one? It's like "oooo how dare you label me a minority with your puny little numbers...!"

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Reality can be counterintuitive sometimes; that doesn't imply that it isn't reality. It's kind of irritating being told that time slows down when you approach the speed of light when neither me nor anyone I know has gotten close enough to notice it.

Yes, well, don't blame the assumption for how people use it.

Have you specific reasons why the people studied would make a particularly unrepresentative sample?

edited 13th Nov '11 8:39:11 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Because their 'surveys' were posted on porn sites and fan fiction forums?

@Hidden Faced Matt

Uhm. I'm not talking about "counter-intuitive". I'm talking about "flat out does not match up with observed reality". If a study says that the norm is for people to be X, and you literally do not know anyone who is X, and indeed most people you know are actually Y, then I'm going to start questioning the validity and status of the findings. Asking where and how the sample was obtained, for instance, and whether the supposed "norm" was actually just specific to a certain area or culture and not indicative of the general "norm" at all.

And, of course I'm going to blame the assumption if the assumption is flat-out incorrect. Look at the classic assumption that if you're poor and/or unemployed that it means you're lazy and it's your fault, when actual reality shows that's not the case. And yet that flat-out wrong assumption is often used as an excuse to not improve the situations of poor or unemployed people.

Now, granted, most of the stuff outlined here is pretty tame compared to that. But still, it seems ridiculous to, say, be biased against finding a woman with large feet attractive due to "fertility cues" when there's no indication that it's a fertility cue to begin with. It seems like either a ridiculous incorrect assertion on the part of the study, something very limited to the specific culture of the people pool the sample was drawn from (the Chinese had a cultural obsession with small feet for the longest time, for instance, for reasons not having anything at all to do with fertility), or male attraction cues are REALLY bizarre.

edited 13th Nov '11 8:52:09 AM by Jeysie

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