>>19670338This.
There are gigantic flaws in the study. Primarily how arousal was determined. They showed women porn clips of men and women and judged them to be "arousing" if their pupils dilated.
This is fundamentally flawed because it ignored the subjective nature of the experience and their pupils could have dilated for any number of reasons, not necessarily because of arousal. These are humans with memories, not robots reacting to a simple image. Many of these women, for example, indicated arousal seeing gay men. Well, to her brain, it's a sexual picture of a man. Her pupils dilating could be because of arousal, sure, or it could be entirely unrelated to arousal. Similarly, a sexual picture of two women might trigger her pupils to dilate based on a memory of a man doing the same thing to her, or any number of things, not because she's actually sexually aroused by the physical appearance of another woman. Frankly, their reaction seems to be no different to when a dog gets excited about seeing another dog. That's all there is to it. Besides, their pupils would have dilated the same way if they were also shown food. Does that mean they want to fuck food? No. That's why it's such a poor way of determining arousal.
The way they are collecting the data is fundamentally flawed. It's like making a study where you assess if someone is oriental by judging if they respond to pictures of rice. They're essentially just making a guess that pupil dilation had anything to do with arousal and are just imposing their conclusion as if it's correct because it's the conclusion that they wanted in the first place.
Not to mention the sample size is nothing and they're trying to extrapolate the data to somehow apply to all women, when it could merely only apply to this small number of women, if it even actually applies to any of them in the first place and the data isn't just intentionally manipulated to give them the results that they wanted, which is highly likely anyway.
