New Study Shows How To Tell Somebody Sexual Orientation

I read this earlier - no it doesn't do what the title claims it does, what it does is indicate when someone is aroused.
Thats very different to identifying whether someone is "gay" or "straight".

 

Well that's disappointing, I was hoping for something that was really noticeable. So for me to use this method I have to sexually arouse someone...can't see that going well with a straight guy.

 

It can also indicate they are aroused, and nothing else.
What the article purports to be in the title is not what it actually is.
This is just a nonsense attention grabber to get people to read it with some flimsy and inappropriate wording when in reality it is just a study determining when someone is sexually aroused, not if they are LGBTQRSUVWXYZ.

 

Well no need to be negative, its still helpful, if you've seen other thread some people don't even know when they're aroused.

 

Then label it as a method to indicate that someone is aroused, don't use the LGBT community and the mythical "gaydar" as your headline catching way in to publicise your study.

 

Don't get caught up in semantics. A homosexual is not somebody who identifies as such, a homosexual is somebody who is attracted to the same sex.

Lets say that a man is shown a series of erotic images, and his pupils react to the male images and not the female images (assuming the reaction criteria to determine is he is aroused have already been established by research and test cases). Although it is only the reaction to the images that is measured (in other words his arousal level), it can be concluded that he is attracted to males, and is therefore at least to some degree homosexual, whether he chooses to self identify or not.

If, as you claim, this measures arousal only and not sexual orientation, in what cases would a male be aroused by other males exclusively and not be a homosexual? I can't think of any, but I am open to feedback if you can.

 

You're forgetting about homoromantics. Arent they homosexuals too?

 

Are there not other states of mind and feelings that affect the pupils? Fear, shock, anxiety?

 

Depends how you define it. Homoromantic refers to a romantic attraction, not necessarily a sexual arousal. Some asexuals identify as homoromantic, as they are romantically attracted to males but not sexually.

A man who is romantically interested in males but not interested sexually may or may not be a homosexual, as homosexuality also usually includes the sexual aspect of the attraction. It's all semantics though...10 different people will give you 10 different definitions.

Yes, but they tested hundreds of volunteers who had their pupil reactions compared to genital arousal to established the criteria for determining if the reaction is arousal or not. They found a direct correlation between pupil size and genital arousal.

A subject would be aware of what they were about see, so the pupil dilation associated with the fight or flight response would not be present (nobody would be surprised, shocked or anxious, as they know exactly what they are about to see and consent to watching it). There is also a significant difference between the pupillary response to arousal and mild surprise.

 

It seems to me you're the one caught up in semantics.
The article we are discussing is called "Sexual Orientation: Eyes Reveal Who's Straight & Who's Gay, Study Suggests".
That is absolute poppycock. It reveals nothing of the sort.

I don't even believe it can be an effective measure of arousal.
If you show an image of two men having sex to a straight man, as a point of reference to ArcherySet's comment, that same man very likely would have a reaction that could be misinterpretted as arousal, based solely on the eyes. Now, would you call that man a homosexual IF the reaction causing the pupils to dilate was shock, fear, disgust(all of which cause the pupils to dilate)?
Based in this study, and this alone, you would have to, even though you would be quite wrong. You would have to take other factors in, perhaps even checking the genitalia for changes, which renders the point of the study moot.
Yes, a man with sexual attraction to men very likely could exhibit the reaction posited by the study, however a man without that sexual attraction very likely could exhibit the same ocular reactions.
That doesn't in anyway, then, tell us the sexual orientation of the person. You would need other information, and that other information itself, without the eye test, would give you the same result, and would far more credible.

Then why make the point if you're going to undermine it by saying that?
Personally, and please don't take my comment as a sign of antagonism, it feels like a statement such as the one you've just made, isn't actually about the discussion, but an attempt to steer the discussion away from what is being discussed because you don't want someone to argue against the point you've made...which is precisely the tone of your statement.
Forgive me if that isn't the intention, or I've misread, but it is past midnight.

Yes, they did, and I would be interested to see all the results, including the results taken from the volunteers that were shown an image that they had a similar ocular reaction but didn't have a genitalia based reaction.

Also, just being aware of what you're about to see does not automatically dismiss a physical response. Thats just silly.
Can you show me the data you have on the significant difference between the pupillary response to arousal and mild surprise - unless, of course, this is supposition, in which case, nevermind.

 

I'm not agree nor disagreeing with you, I'm simply trying to make the point that you can't dismiss this whole study so completely, based only on a poorly written news article. I bring up semantics because people often make assumptions that are not necessarily true, which can make or break the validity of their argument. For example, most anti-gay activists base their entire position on the assumption that people choose to be gay, which of course is false. My previous point is an example as well. Assuming that a homoromantic is the same thing as a homosexual, even though asexuals often identify as homoromantic without sexual attraction, can frame your entire argument differently.

The same applies here, by assuming that sexual attraction does not correlate to sexual orientation, you can easily dismiss this study, but if you read the study, you can clearly see the methodology and results, which show a definitive correlation between pupil dilation and sexual orientation.

The whole point of the study was to determine if pupil dilation could accurately measure sexual arousal, and all the data proved that there was a direct correlation between a persons self-identified sexual orientation and their pupil dilation in response to sexual stimuli. In other words, gays reacted to gay images and not straight ones, bisexuals reacted to both types of images, and straights reacted to straight images and not gay ones. Beyond the common sense assumption that sexual arousal is related to sexual orientation, the data in this study shows that by measuring someones sexual arousal, you can determine their sexual orientation.

Just a quote from the study:

If your assertion that viewing pornographic material of any type would stimulate pupil dilation were true, it would be reflected in the data...which it is not. The study was specially designed to minimize other causes of pupil dilation.

I'm not claiming to know the answer...I'm just challenging you because you seem so sure that you do.

 

I have to agree. Our pupils alter sizes on constantly for multiple reasons. Not to mention it is very difficult to tell if someones pupils are larger than they normally are.....
That being said, I am immune to this modern "eye magic". Although I have a healthy "appitite", I rarely actually get aroused.

So Bring It (!)