I'm bisexual. this has caused me a great deal of trouble as i grew up decently confused and partly caused a 4 year relationship of mine to fail. I've explored a lot about my own personal sexuality because of this, and this is one of the more interesting discoveries i've made
This video is pretty insightful and answered a lot of questions i personally had, but for others i promise you'll understand at least a little more about yourself and (the reason why i posted it to TL in the first place) understand what females find attractive in men.
pussy is obviously "somewhere near the top" as quoted from him but not listed as to not be redundant as well. also he describes why vaginas wasnt on the list, cuz it was hard to accurately sample given the data they had..
=/ i think he was a decent speaker although i can see now that he sacrifices entertainment and easy listening for detail, but i never said it was something that would move you, just something that is very informative.
On October 30 2012 22:40 HeavOnEarth wrote: pussy is obviously "somewhere near the top" as quoted from him but not listed as to not be redundant as well. also he describes why vaginas wasnt on the list, cuz it was hard to accurately sample given the data they had..
=/ i think he was a decent speaker
He says that it's impossible to accurately guage the popularity of vaginas from the data but then is happy to claim that penises are searched almost as often as vaginas by hetero men. Thereby making vagina at least #2 on his list. It's just a sensationalist thesis (hetero men love penises) to get attention/sales for the book imo.
On October 30 2012 22:40 HeavOnEarth wrote: pussy is obviously "somewhere near the top" as quoted from him but not listed as to not be redundant as well. also he describes why vaginas wasnt on the list, cuz it was hard to accurately sample given the data they had..
=/ i think he was a decent speaker
He says that it's impossible to accurately guage the popularity of vaginas from the data but then is happy to claim that penises are searched almost as often as vaginas by hetero men. Thereby making vagina at least #2 on his list. It's just a sensationalist thesis (hetero men love penises) to get attention/sales for the book imo.
i guess that sounds more realistic . posted it here partly as well cuz i don't believe everything, but it all logically made sense to me, then again im not straight, so no credibility there
5 min in he said basically nothing. Also description of him, his study, his methods on youtube
Two bold young neuroscientists have initiated a revolution in the scientific study of sexual attraction. Before Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, the only researcher to systematically investigate sexual desires was Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed 18,000 middle-class Caucasians in the 1950s. But Ogas and Gaddam have studied the secret sexual behavior of more than a hundred million men and women around the world. Their method? They observed what people do within the anonymity of the Internet.
yeah... but nah... it ain't for me to spend 1 hour to see if he actually has something interesting and fact based to say.
Two bold young neuroscientists have initiated a revolution in the scientific study of sexual attraction. Before Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, the only researcher to systematically investigate sexual desires was Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed 18,000 middle-class Caucasians in the 1950s. But Ogas and Gaddam have studied the secret sexual behavior of more than a hundred million men and women around the world. Their method? They observed what people do within the anonymity of the Internet.
yeah... but nah... it ain't for me to spend 1 hour to see if he actually has something interesting and fact based to say.
In the first five minutes I learned that I don't believe he is a scientist. Even in that description the scientists are "bold" and their work is initiating revolution. Does science need this much ego?
He states that neuroscience is a way to understand the brain under the assumption that comparing brains to computers can yield valuable information, though he does not say it in such objective and clear terms.
He continues by analogizing sexual desire to gustatory desire and states that men and women are distinctly different in sexual desire but almost the same for gustatory desire. He does this without mentioning a brain region, neurons, or hormones or anything other than the word "hardwiring."
Why did we divide men and women? His opinion is more dominant than the bare content of his research. I find this very dubious.
What did you learn HeavonEarth?
Edit: thirteen minutes in, i'm skeptical that he has no data about vagina. Why has he not mentioned the bias all of his research coming from internet porn might entail? I suspect he has his own bias
So, yeah the vagina is my favourite part of a woman and then boobs and then spine sooo.. yeah i guess i rewired somewhere down the line in his elegant theory.
And then theres the part where "women care about a man's confidence, his ability to get things done. men dont care about this in a woman." I'm a man who loves a woman who can do things. Alpha traits are some of my favourite things. Why can he not speak about htese things without dividing man and woman, or even just add the disclaimer "this is generally true for most women." He just has bad form.
He also mentions "alpha males" without explaining it in any scientific terms.. I find this quite bad but i will continue to watch.
Edit #2 now its over. Someone asks about his data and he cites NO actual research. He says "we talked to the shemale pornstars and they said most of their fans were heterosexual." Even if that counted as data it would be biased because these are people who are already into it.
What was his main finding? New effective ways to perpetuate stereotypes with the popular erotic content for each respective gender. Secondly we explained the phenomenon of the popularity of shemale porn among heterosexual men. Separate visual cues "trick the brain." Like someone looking at the mona lisa is tricked into an ambivalent feeling of her emotions, the penis, which is a sexual cue for men combined with other sexual cues of a female body do something similar for men. I guess thats good?
For me its really easy to explain why the penis is an important part of my sexual stimulation. I have one. I can empathize with the penis as it enters the vagina. Thats why i like to have one in my porn..
Overall, i would not recommend this lecture if there was an event with multiple lectures and some are at the same time. I learned very little and found much of the ideas were not congruent with my own experiences.
I like some of the kinkiness of a vampire too. I'd rather just say that the myth of vampires speaks to something that is true in some way about my human experience. Id even rather look to some of Freud's or Jung's ideas on complexes and fetishes and child sexuality.
Two bold young neuroscientists have initiated a revolution in the scientific study of sexual attraction. Before Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, the only researcher to systematically investigate sexual desires was Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed 18,000 middle-class Caucasians in the 1950s. But Ogas and Gaddam have studied the secret sexual behavior of more than a hundred million men and women around the world. Their method? They observed what people do within the anonymity of the Internet.
yeah... but nah... it ain't for me to spend 1 hour to see if he actually has something interesting and fact based to say.
5 minutes in he's only talking about some background and a bit on his sources of data, how can you automatically extrapolate it into "oh this talk is worthless and has no meaningful results". It would be better to read the book and critique his method from there OR actually watch the whole damn thing.
On October 30 2012 22:55 Aterons_toss wrote: 5 min in he said basically nothing. Also description of him, his study, his methods on youtube
Two bold young neuroscientists have initiated a revolution in the scientific study of sexual attraction. Before Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, the only researcher to systematically investigate sexual desires was Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed 18,000 middle-class Caucasians in the 1950s. But Ogas and Gaddam have studied the secret sexual behavior of more than a hundred million men and women around the world. Their method? They observed what people do within the anonymity of the Internet.
yeah... but nah... it ain't for me to spend 1 hour to see if he actually has something interesting and fact based to say.
5 minutes in he's only talking about some background and a bit on his sources of data, how you can automatically extrapolate it into "oh this talk is worthless and has no meaningful results". It would be better to read the book and critique his method from there OR actually watch the whole damn thing.
You can extrapolate because he calls his work science. Therefore, if he wants respect for his work, his introduction should clearly outline his intentions, his methods, his theory. It does none of those. He just starts talkin about his findings without any background on the ways he did this. If you listen critically, the first five minutes will teach you a lot.
Never got into shemales, but I do admit I never liked lesbian porn and always liked porn involving hardcore, blowjob, whatever that involves a penis. But it's not just penises by themselves, whereas a naked woman is attractive by themselves. That said, a vagina by itself is probably about as arousing as a penis is by itself to me, that is, not very much.
Anyways, I try not to look at the stuff anymore though. Seriously bad for me.
yeah I'm not going to watch more (watched to 25 minutes) but he begins to explain that they are just classifying "shemale" as including porn with strap ons, etc, and not actual transexual actors. So basically most lesbian porns will use very phallic stuff, and a lot of porn will have dildos and stuff too.
These studies also (probably) get biased as a large part of the dataset they probably analyze are from the people who purchase porn (which I imagine is a minority of people) as they are either into probably a little more fetish type websites or also have live streams/webcams which probably includes a lot of dildo masturbation type stuff. Because it's much much much easier to analyze data like "1000 people bought a subscription to this website" than try to estimate what part of the porn people are interested in (i.e. also relating the problem of how the vagina could not be analyzed). Their dataset seems to look mainly at categorization, search history, some vague measure of erotica, and not always just the parts that are the actual attraction.
So shemale is another instance the the tag headline "men likes penis" but he recognises it and I didn't see evidence in the 25 minutes he was actually being stupid, just sensationalist; kinda meh classification.
Would be more interested in the data, and not just search history. More like actual videos watched, unique viewers, etc.
which is a paper on the distinctness of bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual attractions, which probably can be extrapolated to talk about the penis stimuli much better than what is presented here (and which is based on search history/video categories for a large part it seems)
huh. not sure what to think, guess ill wait for more comments. Sorry for wasting your time if this is bullshit though. for anyone who's actually watched the entire video though, (and isn't extremely introverted ) what did you think of his description of womens sexual preference towards men and they way they think? i thought he was pretty spot on here, i kind of ignored the whole spiel on straight men's sexual preference cuz im not straight, so, sorry for that lol
Pretty much this is a complete bunch of crap. You can look up the psychological of sexual preference, that will show significantly different showings than this mans work.
On October 30 2012 22:55 Aterons_toss wrote: 5 min in he said basically nothing. Also description of him, his study, his methods on youtube
Two bold young neuroscientists have initiated a revolution in the scientific study of sexual attraction. Before Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, the only researcher to systematically investigate sexual desires was Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed 18,000 middle-class Caucasians in the 1950s. But Ogas and Gaddam have studied the secret sexual behavior of more than a hundred million men and women around the world. Their method? They observed what people do within the anonymity of the Internet.
yeah... but nah... it ain't for me to spend 1 hour to see if he actually has something interesting and fact based to say.
5 minutes in he's only talking about some background and a bit on his sources of data, how you can automatically extrapolate it into "oh this talk is worthless and has no meaningful results". It would be better to read the book and critique his method from there OR actually watch the whole damn thing.
You can extrapolate because he calls his work science. Therefore, if he wants respect for his work, his introduction should clearly outline his intentions, his methods, his theory. It does none of those. He just starts talkin about his findings without any background on the ways he did this. If you listen critically, the first five minutes will teach you a lot.
At the time of post I only watched the first five minutes and I was criticising Aterons_toss because he claimed 'he said basically nothing'.
As for his claim of his work being science, I agree its dodgy from the talk; it seems very informal and not what a proper conference proceeding would be like. Even if it was a proper conference presentation, that doesn't increase the credibility of its findings. That should be evaluated based on methodology and the results/discussion.
On October 31 2012 00:43 HeavOnEarth wrote: huh. not sure what to think, guess ill wait for more comments. Sorry for wasting your time if this is bullshit though.
I come to teamliquid to waste my time. no apology necessary. If it helped you understand something about yourself theres no reason to discard it just because it did not get past the bullshit detectors of some (like myself).
At least he's trying! I get the feeling he knows a lot about science. It just really felt like the data was used to explain his ideas and not vice versa.
Having watched the entire grey matter series, which is a neuroscience lecture video series which took place at UCSD i believe, I felt he did not meet the standard of neuroscience they did. The speakers at grey matter, in their slides, had all of these fancy pictures of the brain mapped out with specific theories that are the main idea of their lecture. they show you how they measure specific things with clever elegant tests and fancy machines.
This guy is more like "ya i went 2 pornhub n i saw wut peepz is surchin up and then i compared dat 2 computaz and optical illusionzz" edit: this does not mean his ideas are bad. and speaking with d's instead of th's also is not a sign of lacking intelligence.
On October 30 2012 22:55 Aterons_toss wrote: 5 min in he said basically nothing. Also description of him, his study, his methods on youtube
Two bold young neuroscientists have initiated a revolution in the scientific study of sexual attraction. Before Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, the only researcher to systematically investigate sexual desires was Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed 18,000 middle-class Caucasians in the 1950s. But Ogas and Gaddam have studied the secret sexual behavior of more than a hundred million men and women around the world. Their method? They observed what people do within the anonymity of the Internet.
yeah... but nah... it ain't for me to spend 1 hour to see if he actually has something interesting and fact based to say.
5 minutes in he's only talking about some background and a bit on his sources of data, how you can automatically extrapolate it into "oh this talk is worthless and has no meaningful results". It would be better to read the book and critique his method from there OR actually watch the whole damn thing.
You can extrapolate because he calls his work science. Therefore, if he wants respect for his work, his introduction should clearly outline his intentions, his methods, his theory. It does none of those. He just starts talkin about his findings without any background on the ways he did this. If you listen critically, the first five minutes will teach you a lot.
At the time of post I only watched the first five minutes and I was criticising Aterons_toss because he claimed 'he said basically nothing'.
As for his claim of his work being science, I agree its dodgy from the talk; it seems very informal and not what a proper conference proceeding would be like. Even if it was a proper conference presentation, that doesn't increase the credibility of its findings. That should be evaluated based on methodology and the results/discussion.
Ok, we are agreed. Sorry if my reply was a little hostile. When you posted that I was in the midst of confirming my early skepticism
EPT
