MonDie

I'd like to see a Fourier analysis on how this thread moves between boorishness and sophistication.

If there was an alternate layout without buttons, signatures, avatars, member info, etc., then Michel could just copy/paste the threads. Some sort of "condensed view". It would also help people on slow connections, or people who don't want others to know what they're doing.

"Barbie Girl" youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrYis509A

screw it new thread, later

Hey, I know lots of colors. There's red, and then there's dark red, gray-red, orangish-red, bluish-red, etc. returning November 21

Moontanman!!! It's hard for me to plot murder with you making these advances. Returning on Halloween. Apology for the previous, provocative song.

Chivers et al. accounted for that by showing films of strap-ons and/or airing acts that can be performed between any couple.

folk then Miracle Mile youtube.com/watch?v=R9IZ6fUyXPo I'll be back October 17th.

Here's one for S1eep to keep him awake. youtube.com/watch?v=tY1YKHSTIi0 I should listen to more docile music, like I used too. The Magnetic Fields - Irma youtube.com/watch?v=KwLuueV6XSk I'll be back September 12th.

I was only explaining mediating variables. I'm a liberal atheist, so...

Acme, unless we're talking longitudinal studies, to say that one variable predicts another is merely to say that they're correlated. Looking at the quotes, there is no mention of "mediating" variables, or variables being "controlled for." Edited because I derailed.

When a woman dresses skimpily, I see that she has a lot of guts... and at least a small dose of (healthy) narcissism, although I can understand the concern when it's a young person. Maybe you're more conservative than you think. I will partake if I find the time to read the PDF. Some issues already: - How did they establish causation? Do they even know which are the mediating variables? - Do their scales remain valid in a wide range of samples?

edit: Maybe that song was just a little psychopathic. I'll be back the 31st, and I'll pick an electronica song for s1eep.

That cat raises some philosophical questions.

Maybe a better term than identification would be vicarious stimulation. I think it says it better. mriver8, the point is that, although they were turned off by naked men, they were less turned-off by naked men engaged in intercourse. However, they determined preference on the sole basis of a self-report, so perhaps some gay men infiltrated the experiment as heterosexuals, which would also explain the pattern. It looks like we have a mystery on our hands!

Because Chivers 2007 replicated the finding that heterosexual women report quite a bit more arousal to female-on-female intercourse than to male-on-male intercourse, and this was even corroborated by vasocongestion measured as vaginal pulse amplitude. The authors note that, at least for heteroseuxal women, their findings are consistent with Symon's idenfication hypothesis, wherein women become aroused by identifying themselves with the actors in the films. Again consistent, researchers have found that both men and women spend more time looking at the female actors in erotic films. I was surprised that this wasn't mentioned in the Discussion of Chivers 2007, but I saw support for men becoming aroused through identification too. Subjective or penile, the gay men were roughly equally turned-off (or not turned-on, depending on the graph) by all female stimuli, but the heterosexual mens' scores were higher for a masturbating man versus a naked man exercising, and even higher for man-man intercourse. This could be because gay men cannot identify themselves with the non-preferred sex, whereas heterosexual men can, despite that the heterosexuals (compared to gays) seemed slightly more turned off by seeing the non-preferred sex in the nude. I would be interested to see whether the relative strength of arousal cues depends on hormone levels. For example, men tend to have more testosterone, so maybe they would be less responsive to gender cues (and exhibit a more female-like response pattern) if they had lower testosterone levels. But they're not turned on by man-on-man porn (on average).

This thread is HOT apparently, but I'll be absent until August 29th. A small quip about terminology. I wouldn't call it "homosexual" or lesbian porn unless it was directed toward those groups. A lot of female-on-female porn is actually directed toward guys, and the participants aren't necessarily lesbians.

What!? If it's homophobic at all, I would say it's because they're so aversive to naked men that they don't even like male-on-female erotica. What's your reasoning? Gender and Sexual Orientation Differences in Sexual Response to Sexual Activities Versus Gender of Actors in Sexual Films (Chivers, Seto & Blanchard) http://www.indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Chivers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf On page 1114 are the penile plethysmograh scores of hetero- and homosexual men. On page 1115 are the subjective reports of arousal for men and women of each orientation. Ignore the first graph on page 1113. These researchers confirm what's been said (if you ignore the vaginal photoplethysmograph scores, which don't correlate with subjective reports of arousal). They pose the hypothesis that women are aroused by sexual activity cues, and men by gender cues. These cues are concordant for homosexuals, but discordant for heterosexuals. As expected, gay men and women were very aroused by man-man and female-female intercourse (Male / Female, I), respectively, but didn't have a strong response to the female-male (FM) intercourse. The heterosexual men were strongly aroused by female masturbation (Female, M), female-female intercourse, and FM intercourse. The heterosexual women reported their strongest response to the FM intercourse. This was followed by female-female intercourse, followed by masturbating men or women (Male / Female, M), followed by man-man intercourse. Heterosexual women didn't seem to exhibit a "category specific" response pattern that relies on gender cues. I'm still reading the (unusually long) discussion section. "Participants were classified as heterosexual or homosexual on the basis of their self-assessment on the Kinsey Sexual Attraction Scale (Kinsey, et al., 1948; Kinsey et al., 1953). Individuals who rated their sexual attractions as predominantly toward opposite-gender persons were classified as heterosexual (score equal to or lower than 2 on a scale from 0 to 6), and those rating their sexual attractions as predominantly toward same-gender persons (score equal to or greater than 4 on the same scale) were classified as homosexual. (Chivers et al)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a33lKhz8sy8 August 17th

No copyright

"I've seen the sun set in the east and in the west." In other words, she's out-paced Earth's rotation. I'll be back August 11th. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2825218/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724125028.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796266/ Okay, now I feel okay posting this Elliott Smith song, whom I'll post since this thread seems full of middle-aged men.

Think of the children!

Are you discreetly commenting on my last song link? I think I'm out of music that I can relate to math. Now I really am sad. Until August 7th, I'll be

It was a pun! I rarely listen to Elliott Smith anymore, but I used to particularly enjoy this cover of School House Rock. youtube.com/watch?v=XikZCsZkdtk

I just invented this one. "I'm a Christian!" "Why are you a Christian?" "Because Jews are thieves, muslims are terrorists, and atheists are commies!" edit note: He didn't need to be Christian; it was merely incidental. You can make him an atheist if you want!