STUDY: Men attracted to transwomen are more similar to straight than gay men in their penile arousal patterns.

Tranny-fuckers (men who fuck shemales, women who hitch up with manly, manly butch women) are their own special category aside from gay or straight..

The most important part of the study is the figure below.

It shows that men who self-report attraction to transwomen (called GAMP in the study) are as attracted to (normal) women as straight men are. By contrast, they were a lot less attracted to men than the gay men are.

However, the typical straight male in the study were not very aroused by the shemale stimuli that they were shown.

The straight fraus can have them!

We don't want them!

R1 Yes, that's more or less correct. They're unique in their attraction to shemales. The typical straight guy is not a lot more interested in shemales than they are in normal-looking men. However, the typical tranny-chaser can be as attracted to normal women as the average straight man.

It makes sense.

I've heard of "straight" men cheating on their wives with shemales and trannies before.

I have never once heard of a gay man cheating on his male partner with a tranny...

[quote] he typical straight guy is not a lot more interested in shemales than they are in normal-looking men

By the way, scratch that. If you look with more attention at the graph in R2, it seems the normal straight men were actually moderately aroused to the shemale stimuli, as shown in the Genital Arousal graph, even if they didn't quite admit it in their rating of the stumili (shown in the Subjective Arousal graph).

Those studies are bullshit. There have also been penile arousal studies that show men are attracted to children which is ridiculous and definitely not the case for me. Some done in Africa showed strraight men were attracted to men and women. Others showed most homophobic men and a lesser but still substantial amount of non-homophobic straight men were attracted to men. Studies have shown a lot of men can control their arousal so what about them? I don't believe sexuality can be studied in a lab. What if the dude is turned on by being watched? Anxiety also increases arousal. The pupil dilation studies also showed a lot of men were attracted to men and women. I find it difficult to believe.

You don't think a lot of men would feel weird hooked up to a machine to watch porn? I'm sure the results are accurate for some men but I would feel really uncomfortable and it would be difficult to get hard. I can also decrease my erection if I have to.

Nonetheless I actually think guys into trannies are pretty straight. I've known straight guys who were also solely attracted to dick too. I just think these studies are ridiculous and it seems weird to me that they would be used. If I remember correctly I believe these studies began as a way to test if someone was pretending to be gay to draft dodge. Here is an article about it:

Another interesting finding: The tranny-chasers who identified as bisexual were NOT particularly attracted to normal-looking men. It seems their bisexual identity is entirely due to their attraction to transwomen, whom they probably see as male.

[quote] Their bisexual identities, however, did not correlate with their sexual arousal to male stimuli. Instead, bisexual identification was positively associated with degree of autogynephilia.

Again to clarify I'm sure for a portion of men the results are accurate I guess I just disagree with the idea of extrapolating them onto men as a whole. I forgot to mention that the whole premise depends on your attraction to the people used. It also depends on the strength of your sex drive. I'm definitely not attracted to every man I see.

same as many of these women who date bull dykes. just as r1 says

R7 Skepdic is not a serious source. It's written up by amateur bloggers who jerk off to Richard Dawkins and who for some reason think that alone makes them big social science connoisseurs. Their agenda to force social science and psychological findings to conform to a liberal and rationalist interpretation of human nature is obvious.

The penile plethysmography is an excellent tool to tap into men's hidden desires. It's great at spotting pedophiles among men accused of pedophilic offending but insist on denying their attraction to children, preference for violent sex among rapists, and fetishist arousal among autogynephilic men who deny their tendencies. The biggest study on sexual recidivism prediction concluded that the penile plethysmography is the best tool to predicting sexual recidivism - better than self-report measures and clinician opinion (link below). And by the way, if African men in some studies show arousal to men, despite identifying as straight, then, well, it's probably because they're truly attracted to men. Maybe someone should inform the Dawkinsbro who wrote the Skepdic entry that sexual attraction to men by men is stigmatized, even more so in Africa than in the West, so he shouldn't be surprised when one's self-identity doesn't match his measured arousal.

The rest of the entry has so many inaccuracies, I can't escape the conclusion that the blogger is being driven by an agenda. He outright says that it's common to find straight men being significantly aroused by other men, which is not true. The arousal that men evoke in straight men in the PPG is usually much smaller than that provoked by women, while the reverse applies to gay men. In fact, when one uses low-level sexual stimuli, such as non-sexual nudes, men will evoke less reaction in straight men than pictures of landscapes. When one uses highly sexual stimuli, such as intercourse, it's true that gay sex will evoke more reaction from straight men, but still, the amount of arousal is a small fraction of that provoked by lesbian or heterosexual sex, thereby accurately identifying straight men as such.

I am familiar with the data and R11 is absolutely correct.

Straight men are aroused by images of women and of men with women; not by images of men alone. Gay men are aroused by images of men and of women with men; not by images of women alone.

(for the record, women (both straight and gay) show arousal to images of men, women, and all combinations thereof, and even images of apes engaged in sexual activity.

There are so many problems with studies like this.

I will wilt at the site of a tragic tattoo, fake tits, shaved pubes. There is so much personal preference that goes beyond the gender.

R13 I don't think you're really addressing the study. At all.

R12 Ah yes, the Chivers and Bailey studies, or "Vaginal and Penile Arousal are Definitely Comparable. What Exactly is The Clitoris Anyway?"

R15 You're a liar. Datalounge is always tiresome and an embarrassment when it comes to discussing scientific output because people on here think they can debate it like they do their silly pop culture obsessions, hitting the one note they can use - over-the-top snark.

Chivers' studies on women all notice that the measuring vaginal arousal is not the same as measuring penile arousal because, among other things, the penile reaction is highly correlated with self-reported arousal whereas the vaginal arousal is not so much. She's clearly admitted that female sexuality has some dimension other than arousal. But just because vaginal arousal offers a mixed picture, that doesn't mean that it should be ignored. Or should it??

R16 If you are gonna measure penile arousal, in what universe would it be considered appropriate to also measure vaginal arousal as some sort of fair equivalent in regards to female anatomy? In what universe would the clitoris be completely ignored in a scientific study that seeks to examine female sexual response? You might as well be comparing pupil dilation and erections.

Stop soap-boxing; it's getting cringe-worthy.

R17 I don't know. You can ask Dr. Chivers. She's on Twitter, Facebook etc. She's highly approachable. Let me know what her answer will be. My guess is that there simply aren't instruments measuring arousal in the clitoris at this point in time, so they have to make do with the next best thing, blood flow in the vagina, which is highly correlated with arousal anyway.

In any case, what does any of this have to do with the present study? This study is measuring arousal among people with dicks. Whatever you think of studies measuring vaginal arousal has no impact on what's being debated on the thread, so go play smartest kid on class elsewhere; your supposed knowledge is not required here.

[quote] I have never once heard of a gay man cheating on his male partner with a tranny...

Cross-dressing men who have sex with other men exclusively aren't trans.

For the vast majority of homosexual men masculinity is attractive both psychologically and sexually. The vast majority of homosexual men are not attracted to transwomen and men dressed like women.

If you people being open homosexual men find femininity and things associated with women a turn-off would you look for femininity in a partner?

What I meant to say is that depsite the fact that these people were born male their psychology, their brain are feminine and that is what attracts some heterosexual men.

Why are certain behaviors labeled "masculine" or "feminine" in the first place if they appear in both women and men?

I'll be sure to file this under "No shit, Sherlock."

R21 Because it is noticeably more visible in one sex than in the other.

Just to be clear, R23, I meant mannerisms and not actual manifestations of physical sexual differences.

They are straightish

They're not str8 if they'll fuck something with a Y chromsome as long as that person identifies as something other than male.

So you feel sexually and romantically attracted to transwomen? R26

If so, please, allow me to question your homosexuality.

men love cock - but some men prefer the cock to come attached to a woman.

R26 Sexuality has nothing to do with that, with chromosomes; it has to do with appearances. Whatever part of our brain is responsible for our sexual feelings can't see that deep into a person as his genetic makeup, it can only see body shape. That's why we can be sexually attracted to such things as cartoons or Greek statues, who have no chromosomes whatsoever. And the graphs posted on R2 are enough proof that those men aren't aroused by the normal male shape. But OK, I'm resigned, I recognize that it's useless to say on DL that some men really do not like men.

R29 How about blind homosexual men?

Just in time. Recently, Davey Wavey uploaded a video with a homosexual guy who happens to be blind. He can't see the male figure but he is still attracted to me and not women.

Fascinating

Here's the real headline:

[quote]were relatively more aroused by GAM erotic stimuli than by female erotic stimuli. GAMP men also scored higher than both heterosexual and homosexual men on a measure of autogynephilia.

[quote]Results provide clear evidence that GAMP men are not homosexual. They also indicate that GAMP men are especially likely to eroticize the idea of being a woman.

I have my own theory about tranny chasers: That they're attracted to women, but also like the idea of genitals that they know how to work.

Hmmmm

This thread makes me horny.

Men attracted to men presenting as women:

1. Deep closet

2. Fetishist

3. Weird/Twisted

4. All of above

All this talk of "normal" and "weird/twisted" as judgment on peoples' attractions makes me think we've got a lot of "guests" posting.

It strikes me as normal that attraction is individual and can cover a continuum. I'm not attracted to 95 percent of people, but at the same time can find myself attracted to men, women, and anything in between.

I'm tired of rigid people and their judgmental obsession with putting us all in little boxes.

[quote]I'm tired of rigid people and their judgmental obsession with putting us all in little boxes.

And yet . . .the "trans" nonsense celebrates and promotes the worse of stereotypical female behavior and presentation, i.e., the socially-engineered little box. Something to be indeed judgemental about.

True

I must have been way ahead of my time. I never gave a rats ass what someone "identified" as as long as I got the dick. You could call yourself an Israeli lesbian terrorist for all I cared. Why are labels so damn important ? Ive been on this earth for 57 years and the one thing I know for sure is theres an endless variation of human beings.Just roll with it.

This study is bullshit, these men are clearly bisexual. A man performing femininity is still a man.

[quote]I'm tired of rigid people and their judgmental obsession with putting us all in little boxes.

While I concur that judging other people is a somewhat dubious exercise, I find that the people who screech the loudest about NOT putting people in boxes are the first to ascribe labels of normalcy and judgment on other people.

They insist on their normalcy at the expense of other people and howl if other people don't go along with it.

Within all the normal caveats of legal, consenting adults, my theory is you do what you want with whomever you want in the privacy of your home, I'll do what I want with whomever I want based on whatever selection criteria I have for what I find attractive without regard for the hectoring to tell me what I should find attractive.

Zzzzzzz

Hehe