Not sure what tentacle porn has to do with the subject at hand. Not everything pornographic in Japan includes squid rape.
Are you suggesting that women who are turned on by gay male sex are immature? On what basis, exactly?
Um, what? Let’s review the OP again:
What am I conceding, here?
I’m not strawman-ing anything! So you DO realize that a lot of women like gay sex? Could’ve fooled me.
All right, Princhester, you got me. I admit it. Though they may post erotic stories about it on the internet, most women do not actually have gay male sex. Or drive Ferraris. You happy now?
If anybody would like to talk to me about WHY male interest in f/f action is seemingly much more widespread than female interest in m/m action, we could do that. But I’m not optimistic about our chances for a decent discussion.
Well, the woman who wrote this article must’ve been way ahead of her time to be writing it back in 1997, then. Not to mention precocious.
I think what kimera meant with the 13-20 age range there is to say that m/m erotica is MORE popular with that age group than with older women - not that it’s only popular with the younger ones.
As for me, my childhood fascination was with David the Gnome, not Dragonball Z. I’ve yet to find any slash written about that, probably because the only major recurring characters were David, his wife, their granddaughter, and David’s [del]car[/del] fox, Swift. Oh, and Pot the troll. He was always trying to capture Swift somehow, and…
:eek:
Oh no! SWIFT!
[endlessly looped animation of a fox running]
It appears I’m in a minority. Watching two women have sex does nothing for me. I’ve lived with lesbians ( for several years ), one of my closest friends is a lesbian. And yet there is nothing about their intimate lives that would case me to wish to be involved, or watch at all.
Dunno why. I sure do dig straight sex porn. Hmmm.
Yeah, but can’t you just picture some hot gnome-on-gnome action if someone wrote a David The Gnome/Travelocity commercial crossover? The Travelocity gnome would definitely be a bottom.
David always seemed like a leatherdaddy type to me.
… ow, this hurts my brain.
Wot?
I don’t think you are ready to consider precisely what the data I presented shows. You don’t say specifically how you think it probably misrepresents reality. You don’t give any particular explanation why it skews in a way that erroneously supports my position. You just handwave the data when it doesn’t suit you, but somehow have no difficulty with accepting the importance of anecdote that suits your tastes.
I’ve presented some evidence that more men like watching g on g than women like watching m on m and you’ve presented a big fat nothing to dispute that. All ya got is some data that some women like m on m.
Me: more grass is green than purple, here’s a survey. You: I know of some purple grass so you’re wrong.
You’ve got nothing.
Oh yes you are. And the person who is fooling you is yourself. All I’ve said is that more men like watching g on g than women like watching m on m.
No, you still don’t get it. I admit my ferrari analogy wasn’t the best. Try my copraphagia one and see if you don’t get my point.
I think what Scott Plaid said could be paraphrased as “a person may be aroused by a depiction of a sexual act without necessarily wanting to be a part of the action”.
Well, I will. First, this study only dealt with the participants’ (I keep wanting to call them “users”…) reported feelings about homosexuality. As it deals with desires that are still very taboo, particularly for those who identify as straight, I’d be much more comfortable trusting the results of a study that measured actual arousal rather than reported arousal - an fMRI, or the trusty old “wire up the genitals” method. Plus, they didn’t even SHOW them any porn!
…much less have them read any erotic stories, which generally seem to be more popular with women than pictures.
:smack: :smack: :smack:
NOBODY, as far as I can tell, is saying that women are MORE into m/m porn than men are into f/f porn. Nobody. Not me, not Anaamika, not jsgoddess, not anyone else.
Actually, what you’ve said is… lessee…
(The text of the OP being, once again, “Ever noticed that men like to watch 2 women getting it on, but 2 guys getting it on would disgust a woman (and most men)
how come there is a double standard?”)
(It’s extending the “99% true” and “overwhelming” parts of that analogy to women and gay porn that I’m arguing with.)
All right, here are my assertions:
- Men are generally more into f/f sex then women are into m/m sex.
- But there are still a lot of women who really dig it, particularly in the form of written erotica.
- Slash about Transformers is SILLY, because they are ROBOTS.
harry potter slash - 259,000 results.
harry potter coprophagia - 267 results.
"lord of the rings" slash - 131,000 results.
"lord of the rings" coprophagia - 129 results.
star trek slash - 148,000 results.
star trek coprophagia - 265 results.
Apparently, stories involving m/m sex are approximately 1000 times more popular than stories involving coprophagia. That seems right to me.
Oh, and googling just “coprophagia” on its own? 25,600 results… of the first ten, eight are about coprophagic behavior in dogs. The other two are from a blog titled “American Coprophagia”. It’s also apparently an album title from a band called Sockeye… oooh, somebody’s turtle’s having a problem with it… lotta definitions… down to under 6,000 now… a Romanian grindcore band… medical articles from the NIH and Penn State… still no porn…
I am forced to conclude that slash is much, MUCH more popular than coprophagia. At least among humans, it seems very popular among dogs.
You could be right. What that would have to do with the point I was making, I don’t know.
I never said it was a great study. But it’s more than you’ve got
Then you should have said that earlier and we wouldn’t have wasted out time 
The rest of your post is now irrelevant, if we’re not in disagreement. Though I must say why you were combining children’s stories and copraphagia in your searches, buggered if I know.
You seemed confused. I was attempting to clarify. I do that sometimes.
I apologize. If I ever have a psychiatric research facility to order around, this’ll be the FIRST thing I get them to study, I promise.
What, like back in post #84? Yes, perhaps I ought to have said something like “I’m perfectly willing to concede that, on average, men would be way more interested in watching a video of two lesbians gettin’ it on than women would be in watching a video of two gay guys gettin’ it on.” I’ll keep that in mind next time.
Mostly because there’s truly vast amounts of erotic fanfiction, not all of it slash, written on those topics. Also because I was being silly.
To be fair to Princhester, your standard-issue Bizarre NetFetish Site is probably less likely to use “coprophagia” than your standard-issue slash site is to use “slash”.
Let’s do some math.
“Shit fetish”, which seems more likely, turns up about 648,000 results, but is so clogged with marginally-intelligible, machine-generated spam that that number has little discernible basis in reality, except as an upper bound. It also presumably includes a lot of things like “So he has a fetish for (whatever). What is that shit?”
“Slash (fiction OR stories)” turns up about 1.5 million results, which includes some false positives with disclaimers like “this story is a work of fiction” and someone taking a slash at someone else with a knife or sword or what-have-you. There’s substantially less spam, though, and yaoi adds another 1.05 million entries (with some small overlap and a more-notable amount of spam, once you get really far out in the pagecount). We’ll be generous to Princhester and say that, after taking out spam, there are two million sites between the two of them, and we’ll be really generous and say that 1/8 of the fans in those genres are male, leaving us at 1.75 million pages made by and for the ladies.
Let’s Google some other noticable pasttimes and see how they stack up:
The hit wargame series Warhammer 40K turns up 1.655 million results.
Alexandre Dumas only turns up 1.47 million, actually, much to my disappointment, and includes both père and fils (who admittedly has only a small representation).
WWII reenactment turns up an embarassingly small 48,400. No noticable spam, though, so they might still beat out the shit fetishists.
Dungeons and Dragons turns up about 1.56 million, spanning thirty-odd years of gaming history, truly neurotic bad press, and one very bad movie. We can probably justify pushing this up into the neighborhood of two million and change, what with ‘DnD’ and other variations on its name. Slash isn’t that big, but it looks like it’s pretty close.
On the higher end, lesbian porn (lesbian plus a number of standard-issue porn keywords) brings up probably somewhere between three and five million pages, depending on false positives and repeats, anal sex turns up 4.27 million pages, Michael Moore and gardening both bring up 16.7 million pages, punk rock brings up 16.2, and the United States brings up a cool half-billion pages and (relatively) small change, so I expect that these numbers are reasonably representative, within a factor of two or so.
So… conclusions!
1 - Princhester is probably generally right but not nearly as right as he thinks he is. The purple-grass contingent seems measurably smaller than the green-grass contingent, but big enough that it can’t be dismissed as a freakish exception to the rule; a big, big chunk of people like purple grass enough to make it part of their lives.
2 - I get the feeling that we’re all talking over each other’s heads here, but low enough to think that we’re addressing the same issue, but I’m tired and don’t want to articulate that more specifically right now.
3 - I am entirely too willing to do a lot of silly crunching in the name of an argument.
No, not at all. Chill. I understand that you were trying to be helpful. My comment was intended simply to mean that if that was his point, it was a non sequitur.
Mr Jackboots, I don’t believe that Googepolling means anything much at all. It’s just too unlikely to be representative.
Sir, I bow before your mighty Google-fu.
This discussion of slash is extremely interesting, and might make a good introduction for people who don’t believe in or understand the phenomenon.
What does it have to do with the point you were making? Nothing.
Nothing at all. Instead, it was intended to point out a hole in your worldview.
P.S. jsgoddess, thank you for the link.
Whatever your intentions, what you actually did was make a wild ass nonsensical guess as to my worldview and then poke a hole in your own presumption. Feel free to post any old crap you like, but keep my name out of it.
I posted that then. I see no other way to interpret your statement, besides=“I, Princhester, think that there is no such thing as voyeuristic fantasies.” But you tell me that my reading of it is a WAG. Well, I am sure glad we cleared that up. I am totally prepared to take your word for it that you meant it in some other way, and not in a way that would indicate that you are hopelessly unimaginative.
::Valley-girl::
Like, As if! :rolleyes: , chews on a piece of gum
::Valley-girl::
Well if that’s the only way you can interpret my statement, perhaps you’d better think harder. I don’t know why I bother, but anyway…
I was analysing the data given in the cite in question to see what it might say regarding the OP. I was attempting to draw out, from the stats given, how common it was for women to fantasize about gay males (that being an element potentially relevant to debate). The statistics I was looking at did not list this percentage as such. They did say however that the single most common het woman’s fantasy involved their own partner. Given that essentially all het women’s partners are not gay males, the obvious inference is that the single most common het woman’s fantasy does not involve a gay male.
I’m not entirely sure, based on your cryptic comments, whether you have:
a/ taken my reference to **the conclusions of a third party study ** as being being a statement of my own assumptions, or
b/ somehow completely missed the point that **a het woman ** who fantasises about **her partner ** is almost always not fantasizing about a gay male, het women not usually having gay male partners.
Either way, there is no logical means of arriving at the conclusion you have.
Possibly crackpot hypothesis: It’s also a convenient way to sublimate any physical attractions for straight males who are less-than-conventionally manly – thereby helping them confine their RL attractions to only the most biologically suitable men.
:dubious: Sign me, “Not Bitter”