The dossier contains no specific replication establishing the claimed >90% threshold, despite related work supporting the broader arousal finding. I put NO at 61%: 69% is pricing in a level of validation the evidence simply doesn’t show.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29330483/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37932461/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39227497/

Possibly it is to facilitate threeways or more... Not j/k, quite. But very conjectural.

Not gonna touch this one.

I would suggest utube, and search women's movement in South Korea.

Really amazing, blew my mind.

for women/ppl with vaginas, "genital arousal" makes penetrative sex less painful and less likely to cause injury. "women have an evolved program along the lines of "if someone might try to have sex with you, adjust your body to make it safer"" is probably a better description of the phenomenon than "women are aroused by literally all depictions of sex including nonhuman animals."

I'm not convinced that exhibiting genital arousal and being attracted are the same thing. One may experience genital arousal for all kinds of reasons, including but not limited to something reminding you of sex

This. If I'm shown any kind of pornography, I could probably get aroused by it, simply due to the idea of people experiencing sexual pleasure is arousing in and of itself; it doesn't mean that I'm attracted to the people in said pornography.

I think it is entirely possible that all women experience genital arousal from pornographic material with other women. That does not mean that they're all lesbian/bisexual and that they're all attracted to women.

In fact, I may even consider a possibility that men would also experience arousal from porn involving men, and the only thing preventing that is the societal stigma around that.

If controlled for things like social environment and taking/not taking birth control I’d say very much no

any female born after 1993 can’t cook… all they know is mcdonald’s , charge they phone, twerk, be bisexual , eat hot chip & lie

@TiredCliche Is this a serious comment or some kind of joke/irony ?

@dionisos some kind of joke/irony

@dionisos https://twitter.com/ariasagay/status/1123681771789389824

@TiredCliche Phew x)

@dionisos

Scott seems to consider that idea was a mistake.

@JohnSmithb9be I don't think the argument for it being a mistake is very good. The argument that it's a mistake is that women are also aroused by bonobos fucking. But actually women are much much less aroused by bonobos fucking than by humans fucking, in fact their arousal to bonobos (NH) is almost the same as their arousal to nonsexual control stimuli (C) and completely different from their arousal to human intercourse (I, FMI):

"does it replicate" and "is it true" are two very different questions. The rate of bisexuality among women on a college campus who agreed to be shown porn and have equipment attached to genitals is not going to be representative of a general population

@Shelvacu If I recall correctly, in one of the studies they actually investigated whether there was much difference between those who agreed to participate and those who did not. I think they found some differences but not big differences. Also they said that when talking to the women, it didn't seem like it made much of a difference.

Disclaimer: I can't 100% remember how thorough they were, and probably they were suboptimally thorough. But I don't expect this to make much of a difference for replication, since IME this finding tends to be quite stable across all sorts of ways you could change it.

🤔

Gotta do another one with photos of men instead

Selling not because I don't think the paper replicates (I think it has replicated a bunch of times), but because I am unsure whether it satisfies the ">90%" threshold.