SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Saturday November 14 2015, @07:56AM
from the does-that-mean-they-are-crooked? dept.
from the does-that-mean-they-are-crooked? dept.
Gay women tend to be exclusively sexually attracted to women, while straight women are more likely to be aroused by both sexes, a study says.
Researchers asked 345 women about their sexual preferences and compared these with their arousal levels when shown videos of attractive men and women.
They found 28% of straight women were mostly aroused by their preferred sex, compared with 68% of gay women.
The University of Essex study concluded that no woman is "totally straight".
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
No Woman 'Totally Straight', Study Says
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @02:58PM
That might technically be so if you insist being such an inkhorn.
It's not being pedantic. I expect good science, not worthless trash. Bad science being pumped out constantly just gives science deniers more reason to deny the good science (of course, they would probably find reason to reject it anyway) and confuses the gullible.
I myself already find the statement it is highly unlikely for a woman to be "totally straight" quite the claim.
Well, so would I. But that's just a hypothetical scenario where all of their research isn't total nonsense; that's all they could claim in the best case scenario.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @04:45PM
Attack their methods, not their results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @06:56PM
I am attacking their methods. When they make such exaggerated claims ("X doesn't exist at all.") and reach conclusions based on silly subjective nonsense, they are doing real science a disservice.