Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Internet Searches Reveal About Human Desire

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the particular-subset-of-human-desire dept.

The Internet 224

Hugh Pickens writes "Time Magazine reports that computational neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analyzed the results of 400 million online searches for porn and uncovered some startling insights into what men and women may really want from each other. In the first place, although you can find an instance of any kind of porn you can imagine on the internet, people search for and spend money and time on 20 sexual interests, which account for 80% of all porn — the top 10 sex-related searches include variations on youth (13.5 per cent), breasts (4 per cent), cheating wives (3.4 per cent) and cheerleaders (0.1 per cent) among others. Many are surprised that "cheating wives" is such a popular search but Ogas says that it's one of the top interests all around the world because men are wired to be sexually jealous but simultaneously they're also sexually aroused so if a man sees a woman — including his partner — with another man, he becomes more aroused. Women prefer stories to visual porn by a long shot and the most popular erotica for women is the romance novel because female desire requires multiple stimuli simultaneously or in quick succession."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fake "Science" (5, Informative)

RandomLinguist (712026) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281518)

Their methodology was atrocious, their so-called university affiliation was denied by the college, and they used unethical research practices. this is NOT science; it is GARBAGE.

Check these out, yo:
A thorough summary of the fail [journalfen.net]
Another roundup [livejournal.com]

Re:Fake "Science" (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281586)

FTFA:

I'm a computational neuroscientist. I view the mind as software.

Righto. Abort, Retry, Fail for you, dude.

Re:Fake "Science" (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281858)

Unless that was just Time fucking it up, which probably wouldn't be a first, I would steer a wide berth around a computational neuroscientist who views the mind "as software" rather than "as something usefully analogous to, and modellable by, software".

We don't know as much as we would like about the brain; but we know enough to say that it looks very, very, very unlike a "computer" or something that "runs software" except for near-uselessly broad definitions of those things. If anything, the more or less complete annihilation of analog computers by cheap, fast, transistors and the brutally fast Von Neumman architecture devices that they make possible have made the "brain = computer, mind = software" analogy less useful than it used to be(ironically, of course, at the same time, those same not-very-brainlike machines have brute-forced their way ever closer to being able to model biological neural networks of non-useless size...)

Re:Fake "Science" (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281684)

Their methodology was atrocious, their so-called university affiliation was denied by the college, and they used unethical research practices. this is NOT science; it is GARBAGE.

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! If they listed midgets and goatse.cx too high up people would have an aneurysm :-)

(Very much tongue in cheek. I agree that this "science" is nothing of the sort).

Re:Fake "Science" (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281916)

It's funny how often things go badly when people(even, perhaps especially) very smart ones step out of their discipline and assume that somebody else's disciple must be fairly simply reduceable to the rules and techniques of their own. Economists seem to be the most notable offenders; but these computational neuroscientists seem to have wandered deep into the sociologists' territory just because they saw a database and a tenuous connection to human behavior. Of course the primitive locals who've been developing the study of population behaviors had nothing to teach them... so they stumbled merrily into nonsense.

Sorry kids, it is arguable that some disciplines are utterly useless, or that some disciplines attract smarter people than others; and it is definitely the case that strict segmentation between them is counterproductive; but it is rarely the case that your neighbor's discipline is just a pitiful subset of yours, engulfed in darkness and just waiting for you to enlighten them...

Re:Fake "Science" (1)

crush (19364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282016)

And now that this study has been published there will be a spike in the number of people searching for "granny porn" and "aged cunts". ;)

Re:Fake "Science" (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281874)

Furthermore this sounds like another study from the institute for researching the blatantly obvious.

Re:Fake "Science" (2)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281930)

I didn't RTFA, but I'm going to throw in my conjecture anyway. What about some other considerations:

Is it true that simply the most searched for terms are what the most people are actually looking for? For example, if something is easy to find, why bother doing any searching? Thus the most searched terms could be the ones that people are just most dissatisfied with in what they find. Another example, does 'cheating wives' mean that men are actually desiring to cheat on their wife or fantasize about having sex with a cheating wife? What if it's simply the best search term to find a particular style of porn and not related to the content of the 'skit' nor any desire for the actual act of cheating? Do they think the average user is dumb enough to believe the skits are spontaneous and contain real, cheating wives?

And what is the significance of evaluating searches? How many people simply go to some variety type page and pick out what they like in the feed?

I would say that on such a complicated issue, simply analyzing a table of 400 million results is not a deep enough evaluation to determine people's motivations desires, or interests.

Re:Fake "Science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281988)

Not just that, but it would be nice if it wasn't from 2009. Just saying.

Re:Fake "Science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282126)

Or, put another way, their data came from AOL...so we now know the sexual preferences of the elderly and the mentally challenged...whee!

Re:Fake "Science" (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282448)

Or, put another way, their data came from AOL...so we now know the sexual preferences of the elderly and the mentally challenged...whee!

For the purposes of today's discussion (this being Slashdot and all), it's a pretty good start.

You don't know what you are talking about (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282434)

From http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/17/the-neuroscience-behind-sexual-desire-authors-of-a-billion-wicked-thoughts-answer-your-questions/ [freakonomics.com] :

Some comments contend that our alma mater Boston University disclaimed us, revoked our websites, and rescinded our emails. This is just plain silly. Though we’re now alumni, we still maintain the same BU web addresses we’ve always had, and still have access to our same BU email accounts, though we now rely on non-university accounts.

Neither the Boston University IRB nor our former department (nor any other BU entity) ever issued any reprimand because we did not violate any university policy or regulation. Though it’s true that many colleagues in our former department were uncomfortable with our choice of research subject—some explicitly tried to dissuade us from studying sexual desire—there’s an enormous gap between disliking our research and disclaiming it.

So, well done spreading that particular line of FUD.

I’m not saying that these researchers did everything right (they almost certainly did not), but really, what sort of methodology *would* these people like to see? It is basically impossible to do *any* research in this area, as has been stated repeatedly both in the book and in the discussions online, due to how politically and emotionally charged these issues are. It’s like complaining that scientists using telescopes to find planets with habitable atmospheres are doing bad science because they aren’t there scooping up samples of the atmosphere to check its actual composition.

It’s also totally unclear to me as to what these people are complaining about since there is absolutely no mention of what the problem is in either of the two journals you linked to. As far as I can tell, it seems some people believe the entire book is based on a single survey posted to LiveJournal, which is great for their egos but entirely non-factual.

Atrocious, indeed.

Re:You don't know what you are talking about (1)

pixline (2028580) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282614)

I had to work with them setting up some resources while working for a major adult website, as far as I can tell they just had talks with a lot of people in that community (450K+ people) about why they like and don't like. Don't know if this qualify as 'methodology' but at least they bother to talk with actual people and their approach was quite professional and scientific (given their public talks at least). Apart from that I'm just happy those hours setting up blogs had a reason :-)

Re:Fake "Science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282584)

Everyone knows porn searches are teen, anal, gang, toys, gape, oral, slut, whore, horse and a few other simple terms you can mash out with one hand.

No mention of White Chicks and Black Dicks. This article is rubbish.

Expectation (2)

Boronx (228853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281524)

From TFA:

"The findings also indicated that straight men prefer heavier rather than thinner women, and that straight women, contrary to all expectations, enjoy reading about and watching romances between two men."

All expectation? Anyone who's been around awhile knows this.

Re:Expectation (5, Funny)

pasv (755179) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281562)

I like big butts and I cannot lie.

Re:Expectation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281588)

I like big butts and I can not lie You other brothers can't deny That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist And a round thing in your face You get sprung Wanna pull up tough Cuz you notice that butt was stuffed Deep in the jeans she's wearing I'm hooked and I can't stop staring Oh, baby I wanna get with ya And take your picture My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got Make Me so horney Ooh, rump of smooth skin You say you wanna get in my benz Well use me use me cuz you aint that average groupy I've seen them dancin' To hell with romancin' She's Sweat,Wet, got it goin like a turbo vette I'm tired of magazines Saying flat butts are the thing Take the average black man and ask him that She gotta pack much back So Fellas (yeah) Fellas(yeah) Has your girlfriend got the butt (hell yeah) Well shake it, shake it, shake it, shake it, shake that healthy butt Baby got back (LA face with Oakland booty) I like'em round and big And when I'm throwin a gig I just can't help myself I'm actin like an animal Now here's my scandal I wanna get you home And UH, double up UH UH I aint talkin bout playboy Cuz silicone parts were made for toys I wannem real thick and juicy So find that juicy double Mixalot's in trouble Beggin for a piece of that bubble So I'm lookin' at rock videos Knockin these bimbos walkin like hoes You can have them bimbos I'll keep my women like Flo Jo A word to the thick soul sistas I wanna get with ya I won't cus or hit ya But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna -- Til the break of dawn Baby Got it goin on Alot of pimps won't like this song Cuz them punks lie to hit it and quit it But I'd rather stay and play Cuz I'm long and I'm strong And I'm down to get the friction on So ladies (yeah), Ladies (yeah) Do you wanna roll in my Mercedes (yeah) Then turn around Stick it out Even white boys got to shout Baby got back (LA face with the Oakland booty) Yeah baby When it comes to females Cosmo ain't got nothin to do with my selection 36-24-36 Only if she's 5'3" So your girlfriend throws a Honda Playin workout tapes by Fonda But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda My anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hun You can do side bends or sit-ups, but please don't lose that butt Some brothers wanna play that hard role And tell you that the butt ain't gold So they toss it and leave it And I pull up quick to retrieve it So cosmo says you're fat Well I ain't down with that Cuz your waste is small and your curves are kickin And I'm thinkin bout stickin To the beanpole dames in the magazines You aint it miss thing Give me a sista I can't resist her Red beans and rice did miss her Some knucklehead tried to dis Cuz his girls were on my list He had game but he chose to hit 'em And pulled up quick to get with 'em So ladies if the butt is round And you wanna triple X throw down Dial 1-900-MIXALOT and kick them nasty thoughts Baby got back Baby got back Little in tha middle but she got much back x4

Re:Expectation (1)

pasv (755179) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281598)

way to expand the waist AC

Re:Expectation (4, Funny)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281992)

... but there's an evolutionary reason why.

When a girl walks in with an itty-bitty waist and a round thing in your face you get vital evolutionary information that acts as a fairly accurate indicator of overall health.

My anaconda don't want none unless you have a high likelihood of producing healthy offspring with a minimal chance of genetic disabilities, hun.

My homeboys tried to warn me, but that butt you got makes me so confident of your current well-being and future child-rearing potential

So ladies (yeah!) ladies (yeah!) You wanna advertise fertility? (hell yeah!) Then turn around, stick it out, even other women have to admit that you appear to have the necessary physical attributes to produce many healthy offspring.

[ Copypasta from this Reddit, all credit to original authors: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/gibxk/i_like_big_butts_and_i_cannot_lie_but_is_there/ [reddit.com] ]

Re:Expectation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281564)

Well it was a surprise to me.

The men liking heavier women thing wasn't a shock, however. I've long known that negative body image issues among females are caused by other females trying to make each other feel inadequate or sell products, it's not men pushing those preferences.

[captcha: economy]

Re:Expectation (1, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281656)

Yeah, as the saying goes, "If I wanted to fuck a woman that looked like a 12 year-old boy, I'd fuck a 12 year-old boy."

Unfortunately, there's an unfortunate trend towards androgyny where men(especially emos) are trying look like girls and women are trying look like boys.

The youth and cheerleader stuff is no surprise either. I think its funny how people consider cheerleading to be a sport. The scientists say that young women bear healthier offpring, but I think that the girlie/cheerleader thing is simply because younger women are friendlier, dumber, and (pardon me) have tighter vaginas. They're still idealistic and optimistic, with a bunch of daddy's money to spend, and haven't yet realized that they're gonna end up choosing between settling for an ugly fat bastard(like one of us) or having to fuck their boss to put food on the table. I read on 4chan that there may be a scientific basis for sexualizing people at an early age - the earlier they mate, the more they will mate later and the more offspring they will presumably bear. The recent authoritarian crackdown on "too small breasts" and other underage sex is no accident - the youth-related fetishes are so widespread that everybody is guilty.

About the cuckoldry - There is a popular theory about our penises being designed to displace another suitor's semen from the target vagina. Cuckoldry makes sense because, if you see a woman who is mating(or has just been mated with), we feel sexually attracted because we are biologically motivated to displace her partner's semen and replace it with our own. Sloppy seconds - what else would explain arousal at the prospect of an act most disgusting?

Re:Expectation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281828)

Haha, somebody got turned down by a cheerleader in high school.

Re:Expectation (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281688)

Actually, I had no idea about this. #1 I prefer women who are not fat or even weighty -- I like to be able to pick them up, carry them around, make a sandwich and continue on. Can't do that with fat women. Yeah, there are limits to skinniness, but still. And no, I would not expect women to be turned on by gay romance! The idea sickens me in ways that I cannot easily describe. I'm not a homophobe -- I have gay friends even. But for me, the idea of touching a guy in places...? "doing things"? Look, I won't even do a woman in the butt -- it's just not a place for a penis to go!!

Then again, maybe you're right and I've just not "been around." I like "normal stuff." Perhaps by most standards, it's boring stuff. But I'm fine with it. My wife's fine with it. I like normal sex before I go to sleep. I like it when I wake up in the morning -- my wife does too cause she knows I always make a big breakfast on those mornings 'cause I'm always in a good mood afterward. It's just a good arrangement and "the way it was meant to be."

Re:Expectation (2)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281764)

Well, if we accept the results of this study, then we'd have to conclude that having "normal" preferences like yours technically makes you a pervert.

Re:Expectation (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281806)

Hehehe... then I'm a pervert!!

Re:Expectation (3, Funny)

seanvaandering (604658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282400)

We didn't need a report to prove this point. :)

Re:Expectation (1, Flamebait)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281820)

Not to be rude or anything, Mr. way-it-was-meant-to-be, but fuck you and your hubris.

Re:Expectation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281832)

You don't know it, you don't accept it, but it's clear from your writing that you are 49% gay. And you are the one who bends over.

Re:Expectation (2, Insightful)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281840)

Your post saddens me in ways that I shouldn't even consider. What does it mean when you say you're 'sickened' by something? Does it mean you feel you're unlikely to do that thing, or that the thing in question would make you physically ill, and you might vomit. Would you be prepared to try it to find out, or are you so certain it's... well, not 'wrong' per se, but 'sickening', that you'd be unable to physically contemplate it?

I'm gay, and I regularly place other men's penises in my mouth. Well, one man in particular, actually, in the same way that you probably place your penis in your wife's mouth, vagina or, judging from your post, not her anus. One might ask why it's acceptable for you to push it in her mouth or vagina but not her anus, and while that's entirely the point here, let's not go there. Oh, look - I made a nearly-funny.

I sleep with my partner, and what we do in the bedroom involves inserting parts of me into parts of him, in the same way that you insert parts of you into parts of her. Nothing's dirty or nasty; you don't even know which parts go into which parts. In fact, there are millions of people who insert parts far weirder than you've even considered into places you've never even imagined parts can be inserted. You can buy the DVDs if you're interested. I'm not: what I'm interested is in if you can convince me that you placing your most private, most intimate part into someone else's most private, most intimate part is somehow more special and somehow sacred than me placing my most private, most intimate part in someone else's chosen private, most intimate orifice?

In short, Mr. 'I'm sickened' - oh, whatever. I've been gaybashed on the street by thugs who made a more eloquent argument.

Re:Expectation (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281942)

It sickens me in much the same way that my eating meat sickens vegetarians. I accept that people do what people want to do and I in no way want to impose my own ideology on anyone else. But I shouldn't have to conceal my straightness any more than you should have to conceal your gayness. I spent a couple of years working at an "alternative news weekly" and I'm quite sure at least 30% (and possibly even up to 60%) were gay or bi- or whatever. There's simply no problem with it.

As for my wife letting me put my stuff in her stuff? Well -- it's nature. She likes it and I like it. On the other hand, if she wanted me to put it places I don't want it, we might have to do some negotiations on the matter.

Still, seeing two guys kiss in the street or in the movies or on TV? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't like it. I don't like the way guys smell -- even with cologne. Women smell good to me usually. There's a lot of nature going on there for me. And I'll be the first to assert that there's a lot of nature going on there with you too. I'm quite certain that you do what you do because it's what you feel compelled to do deep down. It's just that the idea of me doing it is repulsive... and quite likely in much the same way that vegetarians find my eating a chewy bacon and egg sandwich repulsive.

And if anyone is interested, I am not christian. My feelings are not related to any such thing as religious morals and ideology. I didn't choose to be straight and I don't know why I am now defending it.

Re:Expectation (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282280)

Good candid response, thanks for that.

"I didn't choose to be straight and I don't know why I am now defending it."

Well, that's going to be how people differently-oriented (or in some places, gender, colour, religion, etc) than you are going to feel much of the time, with an added slice of "most people think that I am bad" on top.

People in the majority "in-group" would do well to put themselves in the shoes of an "out-group" from time-to-time as you just did; the world looks different from there.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Expectation (1)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282324)

I call Susan on your 'it's nature' argument. Prove it's natural to be heterosexual. Go on. You'll please a lot of fundamentals, and greatly displease me. Prove it.

Re:Expectation (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282372)

How do you know Susan? Look, she was "nice to me" okay? So what if she was a little fat?

Oh wait, is "calling Susan" some sort of expression like "calling" in poker?

Re:Expectation (1)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282420)

Calling Susan is a humorous quote. The challenge remains.

Re:Expectation (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282404)

Actually I think you mean to call shenanigans on what you thought was his implication that homosexuality is unnatural. That hetrosexuality is all but an evolutionary necessity is self-evident.

Re:Expectation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282474)

"Women smell good to me usually. There's a lot of nature going on there for me."

With all the cleaning, deodorants, shaving and perfumes, I don't think there's a whole lot of "nature" there at all, really.

Re:Expectation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281948)

Being sickened by squid or gorgonzola or marmite doesn't mean you have anything against the people who eat any of those. So read what he wrote again and stop being (wait for it)... an asshole.

Some people just love being "victims", I guess.

Re:Expectation (2)

radtea (464814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282140)

So read what he wrote again

What he wrote was that his straight and vanilla sex life was not just unsickening but "the way it was meant to be", which implies a very strong normative element in addition to his visceral response. As it happens, his visceral response is one I happen to share, but I'm not an idiot or three years old, so I don't infer normative value from hind-brain emotions.

Spiders creep me out too, in pretty much exactly the same way, and I don't pretend there's anything wrong with them because of that: if anything, there's something wrong with me, although it's pretty trivial as I'm not about to let such feelings influence my stand on public policy, which is based on the conscious recognition that homosexuals have as much right to do what they like with their own bodies as the rest of us.

Re:Expectation (1)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282298)

Cheers. :)

Re:Expectation (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281902)

#1 I prefer women who are not fat or even weighty -- I like to be able to pick them up, carry them around, make a sandwich and continue on.

Disgustingly fat women are nasty, but chubbies are the best. If you can't pick up a chubby then you are a 90-pound weakling and want a woman who looks like you.

And no, I would not expect women to be turned on by gay romance! The idea sickens me in ways that I cannot easily describe. I'm not a homophobe -- I have gay friends even. But for me, the idea of touching a guy in places...? "doing things"?

A few of my girlfriends regularly watch gay porn. Frank discussions with them revealed that the porn was all about connection rather than simply shooting one's nut off. I find gay porn to be disgusting, but to be fair, connection transcends penises and vaginas.

Look, I won't even do a woman in the butt -- it's just not a place for a penis to go!!

You do have half a good point there - people often forget that shit comes out of that hole. The prostate orgasm may have been part of a male-male social bonding mechanism frequently seen in nature, and so it makes sense in homosexual male sex. Reasons for penetrating a woman anally include domination, humiliation, and friction; but there are other, cleaner ways to achieve those.

Then again, maybe you're right and I've just not "been around." I like "normal stuff." Perhaps by most standards, it's boring stuff. But I'm fine with it.

Now is a good time to experiment in the privacy of your own home. Common household items like sheets and pillowcases can be used to bind your partner to the bed. Whipped cream and cherries can make a tasty treat. Slapping doesn't leave marks. Schoolgirl and nurse outfits can be easily hidden. Candles can be innocent until nightfall. Skinny people can work really well in the confined space of a bathtub or shower. Make her call you "daddy," or call her "mommy." Dress up in animal costumes. It can be a trial-and-error process, but knowing yourself and your partner better makes it all worth it.

Re:Expectation (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281926)

I have some bad news [alexa.com] (no, not pornographic or anything, just a site-ranking) for anybody to whom female enthusiasm for reading about male homosexual relationships is a surprise...

Re:Expectation (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282642)

Women like gays. There's a good reason why a lot of women have gay friends: No "threat". There's no inherent threat that they don't want friendship but more and are only friendly because they want to get in her pants. For some women, this is really something special.

Imagine you're hot. Yes, in the classical "you see it and you wanna shag it" sense. Imagine every girl you meet (guy for the girl reading here) wants to fuck with you.

Dream, ain't it?

It is for a while. After a few years of screwing around it gets kinda stale when you learn that none of them really gave half a shit about YOU but only wanted your body. Worse, that you're replaceable by anyone with a similar body, "you", the "real you", don't count. They just wanted to fuck something that looks like you.

I know that's really hard to believe for some here, but it makes you long for someone who does NOT want to screw with you. Sure, you could get friends of the same sex, but it's nice to have a few friends of the other sex too (if only to find out how "they" tick), but every time you try to find one, you'll soon find out that she only wants to get you to bed and doesn't care about you.

And that reaches over into the area of the sexual, too. I know quite a few girls who get turned on by "gay action". But I guess it's not the same reason a lot of guys enjoy "lesbo" flicks (i.e. the idea that you could have both of them and be the big stallion for 'em), it's simply that she could be part of it without having to really participate. They wouldn't fuck her, but they'd maybe let her enjoy watching it without the need to join in.

Re:Expectation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282030)

I think the first misconception from your post is that the majority of people are, as you put it, normal. In my experience, the vast majority of people have predilections towards things that most people or society as a whole consider abnormal. Huge variety in what humans consider attractive leads to more people being able to find partners. Once you accept that, things stop being a surprise.

Also, your post makes me feel somewhat sorry for your wife. I could be entirely off-base, inferring way too much from such a limited post, but it doesn't sound like you spend much time considering what she wants. You dismiss the women being turned on by gay romance topic based on your own view of it rather than thinking about what the female perspective might be. After all, you'd probably find lesbian porn significantly less "sickening" than you would gay male porn, right? Is it that surprising that someone who is attracted to men instead of women would feel similarly about two men as you, someone obviously attracted to women, feel about two women? And if a big breakfast is what she's getting out of it, chances are there's more to be had there for her...if satisfying her is important to you, you might consider asking her if there's anything else she'd like from your sex life.

But here I am injecting my own preferences into my take on your sex life...my biggest turn on is feeling like my partner is satisfied...it's what ratchets it up a notch for me and takes it from being a solely-physical experience to being something more fulfilling. And I need to realize that not everyone, and probably not most people, are like I am. If that's not important to you and your wife finds the current situation acceptable, who am I to question it? If you're happy in a situation in which I wouldn't be, there's nothing wrong with that.

Like I said above, I could have read way too much into what you wrote, but I just thought it smacked of the oft-quipped "the plural of anecdote is not data." And that's just what our own proclivities and preferences are...a single anecdote in a sea of data. We need to learn to view the situation scientifically and understand that there is a real chance that our own data point is the outlier or that, in the case of your views on gay romance, inapplicable to the conclusion.

Re:Expectation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282292)

Look, I won't even do a woman in the butt

Your man card! Hand it over!

*points to the kitchen*

Now go fix me a sandwich!

Re:Expectation (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282426)

"I'm not a homophobe -- I have gay friends even"

I'm not racist -- I have black friends even.

Open goal.

Re:Expectation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282616)

Mr Wiz could have summed it up in a sentence. Go for it, mate.

Re:Expectation (3, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281710)

Well, in science even what "everyone knows" doesn't count until it's published and somebody's rivals can kick the crap out it. A necessary first step to getting beyond common sense is putting common sense to the test. Sometimes common sense is just wrong. If you flip a coin and get heads three times in a row, your chance of getting a head on the next flip is 50%. Rockets with motors on the top aren't more stable than ones with motors on the bottom, and disconnecting the front brakes of a tractor trailer truck doesn't make it more stable in a dynamic braking situation.

The list of mathematical or physical common sense intuitions that are provably wrong is long. With issues of psychology it's a lot harder to put commonsense notions to the test, because they involve fuzzily defined concepts, like "personality".

Since the first step is disproving common sense, no doubt disproof is sometimes found simply because people are looking for it. So what is "unexpected" in the literature might well be predicted by common sense. Science doesn't pile up truths like a stack of coconuts; it approaches the truth by successive approximations.

Re:Expectation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281906)

Anyone who's been around awhile knows this.

Really? I tend to prefer slim / petite women, and all my girlfriends (except one) found the idea of sex between two men disgusting. The one who wasn't turned off by it (in fact, she was actually turned on) was herself bi.

Don't have to search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282108)

You don't have to search for porn with thin females, its the norm. So how do you know men prefer heavier woman from this data? Personally I like a healthy weight, not too thin, but not fat either.

Re:Don't have to search (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282238)

GP just has to stop including the word "walrus" in his searches.

Re:Don't have to search (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282276)

Exactly. Let's compare the trends for "black women" and "white women":

Google trends for "white women" vs. "black women" (+ sex). [google.com]

Does this mean people are 5 times more interested in black women? Or maybe white women are just easier to find online, so there's no need to refine the search. Likewise:

Google trends for "gay sex" vs. "straight sex". [google.com]

I guess this proves "scientifically" that 98% of the population is gay...

Re:Don't have to search (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282480)

Point well made there.

Busted... (5, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281570)

the top 10 sex-related searches include variations on youth (13.5 per cent), breasts (4 per cent), cheating wives (3.4 per cent) and cheerleaders (0.1 per cent) among others. Many are surprised that "cheating wives" is such a popular search...

Is it just me or does this read like somebody succeeded in passing off their browser history as research?

Re:Busted... (1)

econolog (2081738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282166)

Yeah, I don't think you want to know the implications of the data Google has on everyone collectively, and you as an individual.

Re:Busted... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282374)

The genesis of this study:

W: WHAT THE HECK IS THIS ON YOUR COMPUTER!?
H: Its research.... about what kinds of porn people look for.
W: You expect me to buy that!?
H: But, Honey, I am a cognitive neuroscientist. I'm studying what people think about porn ... with their neurons.
W: Ok, but when you are done, be sure to finish that study on why men like to watch women cheat. Anyway, I'm off to the neighbor's!

SurveyFail (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281634)

If you want to know more about how much their methodology fails: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Surveyfail [fanlore.org]

false cheating wives conclusion (4, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281638)

well known men on dating sites like to seek cheating wives because they are more likely to be discrete, have same risks associated with discovery, than single women who might try to attract attention to disrupt marriage for their benefit.

Re:false cheating wives conclusion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281814)

you seem to be very well aware of the reason.

anything you want to tell your wife?

Re:false cheating wives conclusion (2)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282066)

That's completely different. The article is talking about men searching for pornography online that features fictional cheating wives in videos or stories, generally imagining their own wife is the one cheating. You're talking about people looking for actual sex partners online. The article is about men looking for fantasy pornography, and you're talking about men looking for real sex partners. Fantasy =/= reality.

Re:false cheating wives conclusion (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282436)

generally imagining their own wife is the one cheating.

How do you arrive at that conclusion based on a simple two-word search term? The opposite would be more likely:

  1. Imagining their own wife cheating: implies that the man is a loser who can't retain the woman, and the woman is good enough to find another partner.
  2. Imagining that the man picks someone else's wife as a partner. Implies that this man is better than that husband.

Re:false cheating wives conclusion (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282548)

Because I read the article and the scenario I described is specifically what they're talking about? The author said that situation causes arousal in males (in addition to obvious anger) because it means they're going to have to compete with another to impregnate the female, prompting them to produce more sperm. I would imagine the appeal of the fantasy porn version of the scenario is because the reader/viewer gets the arousal factor without the anger, since he's not actually watching his wife cheat on him.

Re:false cheating wives conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282636)

Or maybe the guy just likes attractive women aged 30-45 and 'cheating wife' gets better results than other search terms..

Imagination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281660)

In the first place, although you can find an instance of any kind of porn you can imagine on the internet

Is that a challenge?

Re:Imagination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281714)

You must be new here*.

* the internet.

Re:Imagination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281768)

I'm new here [youtube.com]

Re:Imagination (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282516)

Tenuous link, but a great tune.

Re:Imagination (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281940)

Horatio: *makes the goatse face, turns away from monitor* "You were right, Hamlet, there is more between heaven and earth than is dreampt of in my philosophy. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've just seen a black hole large enough to contain my entire philosophy and then some..."

Re:Imagination (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282662)

I've heard many names for it, but I think you're the first to call yours "philosophy".

That bullshit stink... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281670)

"Neuroscientists", eh. Somebody prove me wrong.

Re:That bullshit stink... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281720)

Bawwww, it's not pure math or physics so therefore it's not legitimate science!

Re:That bullshit stink... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281776)

Hm. I wasn't ragging on neuroscience, I was ragging on this particular piece by purported neuroscientists.

Re:That bullshit stink... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281860)

Precisely. Pretty much all other types of science reduce to these 2 things.

Re:That bullshit stink... (1)

DeLange (2061944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282370)

For that matter, physics reduces to math.

Arousal through cheating? (2)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281674)

(Some experts are of the opinion that) men are wired to be sexually jealous but simultaneously they're also sexually aroused so if a man sees a woman — including his partner — with another man, he becomes more aroused.

Is this true? I would be jealous for sure, but sexually aroused when my girlfriend cheats on me? I don't think so. Are these proven facts, or just a theory based on some weakly correlated evidence?

Re:Arousal through cheating? (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281836)

Heh, it is called "cuckold porn" and is in my opinion a quite psychologically disturbing genre of porn. Basically the guy is forced to watch while his wife/girlfriend is (willingly) fucking with another dude, not uncommonly one of african descent who happens to have a much larger penis than he has. Usually he is also being humiliated in other ways such as having to eat the other guys sperm from his wifes butt or somesuch.

Yes I know, TMI and all that. But you asked!

Re:Arousal through cheating? (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282284)

Is the race bit an "American" thing? I doubt its a big issue elsewhere. Similarly humiliation. I am not persuaded its a turn on for anyone outside America - maybe the rest of the world gets enough of it in real life?

And how about older guys like women their own age? How do you know the age of whoever conducted the search? My own impression is that young guys tend to prefer slim young girls, while more experienced men tend to prefer more experienced looking women, both in real life and in porn. Maybe its because I am a grown up person and not a "computational neuroscientist".

Fashion mag producers (male and female) appear to be gay anyway, and not interested in fertile-looking women.

Re:Arousal through cheating? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282018)

As with much of "evolutionary psychology"(especially the stuff that has the misfortune to be human-facing enough to make it into pop-psych publication), the notion is at nontrivial risk of being nonsense floating on a foundation of methodological malpractice; but there is the suspicion in some quarters that humans bear some of the adaptations one sees in primates where sperm competition, as well mate selection competition, exists.

In large primates, for instance, the more promiscuous species tend to have comparatively large testicles for their body size, in order to produce more sperm, either for more frequent matings, or to have the advantage of numbers against competitors mating with the same partner. Humans are not at the top of that list; but they aren't at the bottom, either.

There is a bunch of other stuff about mate-guarding behavior, possible structural adaptation of the head of the penis for scraping out competitors' sperm, and the like.

The psychological side is a bit more speculative, and it is hard to measure things like that accurately in humans "Please rate your level of arousal, on a scale of one to five, at the notion of cuckoldry...)

Re:Arousal through cheating? (1)

turtledawn (149719) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282610)

Oh, it's not especially hard to measure arousal, just time and money consuming. And it can sometimes be hard to find enough willing research subjects.

What *is* porn, anyway? (4, Interesting)

poppycock (231161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281682)

I'm curious as to how they decided what is porn in the first place, and how much of their own biases leaked into what they decided constituted a "search for porn."

Are trendy electronics considered "porn"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281774)

You pose a dam good question.

I've had the misfortune of seeing people get physically aroused by iPods and Kindles and other such devices. Long stories short, I've been at local coffee houses and seen male hipsters there pop actual erections after seeing some new gadget that one of his friends had brought and was showing off.

What might be most surprising about this is that it has happened more than once, with totally different people. The only constants were that hipsters were involved, as were trendy devices. I think one poor fellow even shot his load after playing with some new Apple laptop.

So this makes me wonder, is it still "pornography" even if no human (hell, or any living creature) is involved? Can gadgets be considered a type of "pornography" if they cause arousal in some people?

Re:What *is* porn, anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282856)

“ I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] ”

— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281690)

i hate the slashdot effect.....

Romance novels (1)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281750)

Sooo...romance novels are basically porn for women? (Assuming we believe this study.)

Also, what about non-heterosexual men? I'm pretty sure cheating wives wouldn't be a turn-on....and I'm not sure that a romance novel is, either. :)

Re:Romance novels (1)

magoenmadrid (2211902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281786)

Sooo...romance novels are basically porn for women? (Assuming we believe this study.)

Also, what about non-heterosexual men? I'm pretty sure cheating wives wouldn't be a turn-on....and I'm not sure that a romance novel is, either. :)

romance novels are sci-fi novels.

Error establishing a database connection (5, Funny)

rizole (666389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281802)

Just like my wife. As soon as I show an interest, she wont let me in.

Re:Error establishing a database connection (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282482)

She is afraid of SQL injection?

Re:Error establishing a database connection (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282688)

*sigh* There's protection against that, has been for ages. I still can't understand why people refuse to use it. It's simple, it's easy and it protects you from so much hassle. Sure, there's a bit of overhead but ain't that worth it? A few minutes of care can save you a lot of headaches when trying to get rid of the infection.

Suspiciously uncontroversial data (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281856)

Actually, and interesting factoid I got from a database optimizer who was working to improve the searches on some major-ish porn site at one point: the popularity of certain kinds of porn (as per the number of searches) actually had almost nothing to do with the supposed popularity (that is, the porn that was available because people produced it, presumably based upon what they thought people wanted). About the best you could say was: there are more people who like male+female sex, than otherwise. Beyond that, results are all over the place.

For example, the incest-related searches work out to between 5% and 25% of searches, depending upon various factors, even though something like 0.05% of porn is incest porn (probably less is genuine; that's how much gets labeled as such). This was true even after normalizing for the fact that people who don't find what they're searching for might rephrase it and search again. One way that they semi-verified this was renaming a few clips and galleries to seem like they contained incest, and look at the decrease in repeat searches and the number of comparative downloads.

The fact is, what we think of as "normal porn" is about as relevant as what we think of as "normal sex" - there's no such thing, beyond the vague fact of most encounters being male+female, which would probably be due to biology more than preference.

Search doesn't equate to browsing... (5, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281876)

Lets say I'm really into Strategy games. So I search for strategy games once or twice. Find some awesome strategy games sites, bookmark them, and then visit the bookmarks directly. I'm not generating search traffic for strategy games. But I will generate a lot for FPS, games and maybe sports games, because I'm not to into those, and when I do want to find something on them, I have to search for it.

Porn is, in that sense, no different that a series of specialized niche markets. If you're really into something and, through a successful search find that 'thing', well...then you don't search for it anymore. Differentiating between traffic and search is probably not trivial however. Search to me represents traffic that is under represented, or that is advertised badly (imagine if I did a search for 'news for nerds' and didn't find /. that would not say much about interest in news for nerds, only that one of the biggest sources of news for nerds wasn't providing good results).

Re:Search doesn't equate to browsing... (4, Insightful)

BeaverCleaver (673164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282514)

I wish I had mod points. Search terms are, if anything, a way to find what people _don't_ browse frequently. I spend plenty of time on Slashdot, but I'm pretty sure I've never googled "news for nerds."

This ruined ST for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36281894)

From TFA:
Is this the kind of thing in which Kirk and Spock from Star Trek would have an affair?

ORLY? (2)

ACE209 (1067276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281896)

but simultaneously they're also sexually aroused so if a man sees a woman — including his partner — with another man, he becomes more aroused.

If by "aroused" they mean "pretty fuckin' angry" then they got that one right.

Re:ORLY? (2)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282132)

But it's fantasy, not reality. Just like an awful lot of women have fantasies of rape or force, but I'm pretty sure they don't actually want to be raped. There are men who might fantasize about watching their wife cheat on them, but would be horrified if it happened in reality.

It's the same with a lot of non sex-related fiction. We love watching movies where the hero battles evil space monsters, imagining ourselves in that role being that brave, but we would crap our pants and run screaming if we were actually in that situation.

Re:ORLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282204)

I admit that there are some girls where my relationship was bad enough that if I walked in on her screwing another guy, I'd probably have been numb. Not happy, perhaps, but perhaps numb enough to crack a joke. But usually, the response would be to be damn pissed off. Luckily, it is not something I have had to deal with, but I've had relationships where I felt like it was going that way and just imagining that happening is enough to get me to break it off.

On the other hand, you can take almost anything if you put yourself in the mindset that it is sexy and acceptable. I found that while the idea of my girlfriend being with another man makes me angry, I think its sort of cool when random men compliment her on her looks. She's coming home to me, so I know if I am seen with her, a bunch of guys are going, "Damn, he scored". Perhaps some people take it one step further, although I would think that you lose points if you have to share a hot girl with other guys.

Right of Passage (2)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36281946)

Well, you have to have people criticize your methodology to be taken seriously. That's how Kinsey Institute got its mojo.

Speaking of which, Kinsey Institute has many similar findings in previous research. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#fantasy [kinseyinstitute.org] Now, I did find myself wondering, since I never heard of a MILF before the past decade, whether people are searching for something until they FIND it and then look for it over and over and over again. Survey may be biased against people who use bookmarks. So I've heard.

404 (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282130)

link two seems to be dead.

Top 10 (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282206)

Since it was /.'ed

  • 1- Youth (13.5%)
  • 2- Gay (4.7%)
  • 3- MILFs (4.3%)
  • 4- Breasts (4%)
  • 5- Cheating wives (3.4%)
  • 5- Vaginas (2.8%)
  • 7- Penises (2.4%)
  • 8- Amateurs
  • 9- Mature
  • 10- Animation

Source of bias: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282352)

It's in English.

MILFs (1)

ian_from_brisbane (596121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36282454)

I love how MILFs is translated for the mainstream:

The top five are youth, gays, [sexy mothers], breasts and cheating wives.

Cheating wives? WTH? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36282666)

My wife cheated on me and I was not turned on at all!!! I searched the internet for help to understand why and half of the stuff that turned up was cheating wife porn. It disgusted me to no end. It seemed to be one of those fantasies that is better as a fantasy and not a reality. I would do anything to NOT have had my wife cheat on me; I deal with the psychological effects everyday even though it's been over a year this month.

The internet did have some help, but I wonder if some of those searches were just guys looking for help with real cheating wives?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?