Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Science

What Internet Searches Reveal About Human Desire 224

Posted by timothy
from the particular-subset-of-human-desire dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Internet Searches Reveal About Human Desire

Comments Filter:
  • Fake "Science" (Score:5, Informative)

    by RandomLinguist (712026) <onelinguist@gmai ... m minus language> on Sunday May 29, 2011 @03:33PM (#36281518) Homepage

    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]

    • FTFA:

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

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

      • Re:Fake "Science" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:29PM (#36281858) Journal
        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...)
        • I thought by the Church-Turing thesis all Turing complete computers were equivalent. What difference does analog or digital make?
          • Very insightful. Wish I had mod points for you. The trick, of course, would be to prove that the brain is equivalent to a Turing Machine. It's not been done yet, and we don't understand enough to even think about such a thing. That thought notwithstanding, the fundamental insight behind the Church-Turing Thesis is that there are a countably infinite number of TM configurations, and an uncountably infinite number of languages that could be applied to TM's. Therefore there are languages that TMs will be
          • I thought by the Church-Turing thesis all Turing complete computers were equivalent. What difference does analog or digital make?

            Not entirely true. First, Turing machines are sequential. There are many cases of parallel computation that cannot be expressed by a Turing machine or as term normalization in untyped lambda calculus. Take for example A parallel-OR B: it will return true when A returns true even if B never terminates. You cannot express this sequentially. Second, analog neural networks with "real" real numbers are "super-Turing" (aka hypercomputers), i.e. computational machines that can solve tasks that a Turing machine can

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          Of course, it's just as likely he was purposefully dumbing it down out of habit...

    • by syousef (465911)

      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" (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:36PM (#36281916) Journal
        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...
        • 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...

          That doesn't stop the engineers and IT folks on Slashdot. Hell, it doesn't even slow them down.

          • I qouls actualy argue that engineer and IT folks dont usually fall into this category. They/We/I may overesitmate their knowledge of a subject, but they dont actually try to boild down psychology into IT. Making correlations is not the sam thing.

        • And it applies to many of the "scientists" touted by global warming deniers. An astrophysicist, for example, may think he/she has spotted a flaw in the interpretation of the data, and will announce loudly that he/she has "disproved" AGW while failing to see the fatal flaw in his own interpretation.
          This is of course not true of the pure sellouts, who simply repeat the scripts provided by their paymasters: "We have no conclusive proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer, Senator."

        • Re:Fake "Science" (Score:4, Informative)

          by interkin3tic (1469267) on Monday May 30, 2011 @02:42AM (#36284764)
          But it also sometimes works out very well. Computational neuroscience itself seems to be an example of that. The wiki page for computational neuroscience [wikipedia.org] mentions the term was coined by an Eric Schwartz [wikipedia.org] who appears to have crossed from physics into neurobiology.

          The "father of neuroscience", Ramon Y Cajal [wikipedia.org], had quite a colorful background. He had skill in art, which probably helped him record his observations and study neural cells, and in his professional career started out studying inflammation and cholera before moving into neurobiology.

          It doesn't appear to be limited to biology either. I've heard there are well-respected economists who were physicists in previous professional lives. To take it even further, even in music, genre-crossing usually has interesting results, like Richard Cheese, who does lounge-singing covers of pop songs, or that bluegrass cover of Snoop Dog's Gin and Juice.

          I'd submit that changing fields can often be productive, bringing a new way of looking at things to the field. Assuming the field is simple is the real problem, but that's a pitfall whether you're switching fields or staying in your own field.
        • by Carewolf (581105)

          Part right, part true. Never underestimate your neighbor, always be careful with what you don't know you don't know.

          With that said, some disciplines are in the dark ages, this is proven when 20 years ago the first computer generated research articles got accepted in humanities and sociology journals. Computers still can not pass a comparison to a 8 year old kid (Turing test), but they have successfully demonstrated being indistinguishable from a serious researcher in one of the bullshit sciences.

        • What are you talking about? Some disciplines are a subset of others, that is an unavoidable fact. Now it can happen that an specialist can have better insight about his specialty than a generalist, this is not the case of the lesser disciple being better, equal nor even different than the greater discipline, it is still a subset of what the generalist should know, It is not the fault of the greater discipline that some specific adherents aren't up to date with it.

      • by crush (19364)
        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". ;)
      • by smisle (1640863)
        I was mildly interested until they said that they had only used AOL search data ... wow. No wonder there's so much old lady porn, it's the user base.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        dude please, no use of "tongue in cheek" in the same comment as "goatse"...

    • 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 havi

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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?

        Like many mammals, male humans are wired to try and mate with as many females as possible, while also defending his breeding stock from being impregnated by rival males.
        Like many mammals, female humans are wired to try and mate with only the "best" male candidate, and to "trade up" when a more suitable mate comes along.

        So yeah, "cheating wives" makes perfect sense in light of the natural mating habits of our species. Of course the religious nutjobs will be on here screaming about free will and all that jazz

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29, 2011 @05:53PM (#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.

    • At least awhile ago Google Trends was showing that 'sex with sister' and 'sex with mother' ranking higher than'sex with girlfriend' and sex with mother was the highest ranked by far. Given what they said and what I've experienced on the net I'd say I've not read anything that's incorrect. Mind you I did only read the Time link.
    • Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
    • Re:Fake "Science" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SirWinston (54399) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @08:08PM (#36283160)

      This "study" was an idiotic exercise in which a couple of junior researchers mined search terms to reinforce their culturally formed and far from unbiased notions about sexuality. All the crap about men searching for cheating wife porn (I believe "cuckold" porn is a popular current term for it) because of jealousy being hardwired and competition triggering arousal was especially telling--these guys are parroting outdated "conventional wisdom" (i.e., assumptions based on post-facto theory rather than formed from evidence-based research) and nothing more. The real work is being done by folks like the authors of _Sex at Dawn_:

      http://www.sexatdawn.com/ [sexatdawn.com]

      who look at the anthropological evidence of how human communities used to live in prehistory, and let that guide their conclusions on how contemporary sexuality got where it is. For example, the _Sex at Dawn_ authors would explain that men want to see cheating wife porn not because jealousy is hardwired and competition sexually excites them, but because we used to live for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe a million+ depending on where you put the dividing line for what's "human") in small communal groups where sex with multiple partners in succession or was the norm. So, men want to see cheating wife porn, and porn where multiple men share a woman, because that was the norm in our prehistory until about 10,000 years ago when agriculture changed a hunter-gatherer society of communally shared lives (mating included) into a hierarchical society of enforced order and scarcity (mating changed into a scarce resource like everything else).

      In other words, today we have external software (a legacy of early subsistence-farming civilization) installing a chimp-like sexuality of scarcity and aggression and competition into our heads, when our native OS is more bonobo-like and tells us we want to share sex partners.

      And we can actually validate this theory, because we have extensive records of contact with "stone age" tribes some of whom are still around today, and true monogamous marriage is almost unheard-of. Most tribes practicing their ancestral ways without Western influence have marriage--but almost never exclusive marriage where partners are expected to be "faithful." Women are usually expected to be promiscuous, and many tribes have "partible paternity"--the belief that every man a pregnant woman has sex with contributes semen towards making the baby, and that if a woman is not promiscuous enough she's not giving the baby a big variety of helpful traits from the fathers, or that the baby could miscarry from lack of continued semen contribution. Some uncontacted tribes literally have had no idea that sex even causes pregnancy, because from the moment females are physically developed enough to have sex they're doing so, often with multiple partners over time, so that the connection between sex and pregnancy isn't clear to them.

      Point being, if you want to really learn about human sexuality, read _Sex at Dawn_ and ignore this other crap.

      • by bye (87770)

        men want to see cheating wife porn, and porn where multiple men share a woman, because that was the norm in our prehistory until about 10,000 years ago

        So how does what you say contradict with what the authors of the article say:

        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

        Are you really making the argument that if something is "the norm" for tens of thousands of generations (your words) it will neatly stay out of our genome?

        • by TheCarp (96830)

          You can't have 10s of thousands of generations in 10,000 years. maybe for field mice, or some other small mammal but, we generally recognize human generations as being about 20 years.... so, 10,000 years is more like 500 generations.

          Also... um... do you really think monogamy has been so strictly practiced that it really would be considered the "dominant strategy"? What family of any size doesn't have one or two "serial monogamists" (on his 4th wife is he?) or know someone who found out that they had adult s

        • by SirWinston (54399)

          men want to see cheating wife porn, and porn where multiple men share a woman, because that was the norm in our prehistory until about 10,000 years ago

          So how does what you say contradict with what the authors of the article say:

          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

          The part about men being naturally wired for sexual jealousy is the mistake--modern thinking dictating their conclusions based on present customs, rather than starting from the anthropological past and working forward without bias. Jealousy isn't hardwired in our sexual software; it's a modern overlay, and not a positive emotion but a negative one:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealousy [wikipedia.org]

          It was normal in prehistory for us to watch the women we sleep with have sex with other men and NOT be jealous, but be purel

      • The real work is being done by folks like the authors of _Sex at Dawn_:

        http://www.sexatdawn.com/ [sexatdawn.com]

        who look at the anthropological evidence of how human communities used to live in prehistory, and let that guide their conclusions on how contemporary sexuality got where it is. For example, the _Sex at Dawn_ authors would explain that men want to see cheating wife porn not because jealousy is hardwired and competition sexually excites them, but because we used to live for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe a million+ depending on where you put the dividing line for what's "human") in small communal groups where sex with multiple partners in succession or was the norm.

        Let me guess, they invented a time machine and frequently travel back and forth to confirm their claims, and that is the reason why you are citing their claims as a good example of scientific methodology.

    • by arisvega (1414195)

      What I read was, "Scientists discover now what males and females know since the invention of fuck."

    • I understand how you feel. We are just jealous we didn't think of it first - a reason to search every kind of pron!

  • 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.

    • by pasv (755179) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @03:40PM (#36281562) Homepage
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
      • by Wrath0fb0b (302444) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:47PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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]

    • by erroneus (253617)

      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

      • by hey! (33014)

        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by xwizbt (513040)

        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 p

        • Re:Expectation (Score:5, Insightful)

          by erroneus (253617) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:41PM (#36281942) Homepage

          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.

          • by DamonHD (794830)

            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

          • by couchslug (175151)

            Nothing between consenting adults sickens me, thanks be to the internet. I'll LAUGH at a lot of it, but it's all a matter of aesthetics.

            I'm hetero, but I wouldn't care if guys want to ball each other in the street so long as they don't block traffic. I've fucked women in public at biker events and it's really no big deal.

            REAL FREEDOM isn't when we are "sensitive" to others, it's when we don't give a shit so long as they don't interfere with us.
            The world would be a much better place if folks minded their ow

          • nice response.

            The thing is, homosexual people are born homosexual, they're wired like the other sex to fancy their own sex.

            Like this article says, there's a difference between men and women regarding how they get turned on sexually, and men are probably the same as other men, gay or not, (i.e. one thing is enough, both get turned on both physically and psychologically) but what it is that turns them on, there the cues differ.

            So it's normal for a nomal male to find it repulsive because straight men are born

        • by hellop2 (1271166)
          "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?"

          Hellop's Law: All other things being equal, the option without the poop is preferred.
      • 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...
        • 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 get

      • I don't think they meant obese women but actually you can find loads of fat women porn. Someone out there likes it.
      • "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!!"

        "It's just a good arrangement and "the way it was meant to be.""


        Heh. You've expressed your physical disgust at gay sex, cited gay friends, and then hetronormatively othered anyone who isn't in a male-female relationship. You may be doing less well at avoiding homophobia than you think.
    • Re:Expectation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hey! (33014) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:07PM (#36281710) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hexagonc (1986422)

        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%.

        Don't mean to nitpick, especially since I agree with the gist of everything else you wrote but this is not necessarily true. The probability of getting heads on the next flip is only 50% if the coin really is fair. Now, three coin tosses are really not enough to know whether the coin is fair or not but if you flipped the coin a hundred times and they all came out heads then that would be pretty solid evidence that there was some asymmetry in the characteristics of the coin or the way it was being tossed.

  • Busted... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @03:42PM (#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?

  • SurveyFail (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you want to know more about how much their methodology fails: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Surveyfail [fanlore.org]
  • by iggymanz (596061) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @03:54PM (#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.

    • 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.
      • by tftp (111690)

        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.
        • 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
          • The GP simply pointed out that the 'study' assumes the man is placing himself as the cuckhold when doing such searches. And that there is no evidence of this, simply conjecture. It could very well be the opposite, the man is placing himself as the stud.

            In fact from an evolutionary standpoint this scenario makes a lot more sense. Taking the resources of a competitor, possibly forcing another man to raise our genetic offspring as his own, Etc.

      • by Carewolf (581105)

        It is an enabling fantasy. I am not sure I fully buy the male-dominance idea either, again I think a good part of its attraction is being an enabling fantasy.

        What do I mean by 'Enabling Fantasy':
          It is more realistic than two random people meeting just saying hi and then fucking. Added realism makes the fantasy more believable, and thus easier to accept.

  • by kvvbassboy (2010962) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:01PM (#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?

    • by bjourne (1034822)

      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!

      • 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 b
    • 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
      • 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.

    • by RJFerret (1279530)

      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?

      First, jealousy isn't a natural emotion, it's learned. So some won't feel that.

      Second, "cheating" isn't a prerequisite. No dishonestly or going behind another's back. A partner having relations with another may be permitted.

      Finally, would you feel negatively seeing a sexual video of your girlfriend from before you were dating her? What about a video of her identical twin? How about if the video featured her with another woman? How about if it was a capture of her masturbating with a stranger on Chatro

  • by poppycock (231161) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:03PM (#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."

  • 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. :)

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

    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 th

  • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:30PM (#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).

  • by ACE209 (1067276)

    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.

    • 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

  • by retroworks (652802) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @04:42PM (#36281946) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      Now, I did find myself wondering, since I never heard of a MILF before the past decade,

      The Moro Islamic Liberation Front [wikipedia.org] terrorist group based on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines has been around since 1981 but have been pretty well overshadowed by their bigger, meaner cousin Abu Sayyaf.

      Being from a region far from SE Asia it's understandable that you haven't heard of them until recently.

  • by hitmark (640295)

    link two seems to be dead.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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 j

  • by Livius (318358) on Sunday May 29, 2011 @08:29PM (#36283252)

    "female desire requires multiple stimuli... in quick succession."

    No, it requires it dragged out for as long as possible, to demonstrate that the male has resources (including time) to spare. Hence the plots of romance novels/chick flicks typically revolve around pointless hesitation and inefficiency.

  • From TFA:

    It's youth by a wide margin, like cheerleaders. But we were surprised to find that even though men prefer youth mostly, there's also a very significant interest in porn with women in their 40s, 50s and even 60s. That's called granny porn.

    I beg to differ, "granny porn" sounds like porn designed for grannies, and this is not the established term eg:

    "Guess what you are a GMILF. That is a grandmother that I would like to..."
    - Skwisgaar Skwigelf

  • OK, let us be specific here in order to make everyone happy.

    So, woman needs multiple stimuli simultaneously in quick succession, and the most popular erotica for women is the romance novel?

    So if a man were to woo and seduce a woman, he's to write his perhaps 500-page novel, while at the same time hoping his erection does dissipate by the time his novel is done?

    Ladies, don't complain that you don't get laid enough.

  • Cheating Wives (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sonicmerlin (1505111) on Monday May 30, 2011 @03:28AM (#36284934)

    I'd also like to point out this "Fetish" for cuckolding is generally centered around white-dominated societies. I've never seen that kind of interest in Eastern countries. Even in hentai the "cheating wife" is portrayed as a terrible, immoral person who eventually suffers greatly for what she's done.

    Only among white people do you see the obsession with women cheating. In fact historically western culture has been far more concerned with the "purity" of women than their fidelity, whereas in Asian countries fidelity and loyalty to the partner and family has always been the most highly valued characteristic.

I don't have any use for bodyguards, but I do have a specific use for two highly trained certified public accountants. -- Elvis Presley

Working...