I've been reading "This is Your Brain on Parasites" by Kathleen McAuliffe, and found this in Chapter 9 (dealing with our emotion of disgust and how it helps us avoid disease) ...
[There was a paragraph on how, when people get hungry enough, they'll eat disgusting things. The following excerpt is what opened my eyes.]
"Just as hunger can sometimes overpower disgust, so, too, can lust--an adaptation that may have been essential to help our ancestors overcome any reservations about mixing body fluids during reproduction. In support of that view, [Valerie] Curtis points to an experiment conducted at UC Berkeley in which male students were asked to predict how much they'd enjoy having sex in several scenarios. Next, they were instructed to masturbate nearly to the point of climax and again provide responses to the same questionnaire. Sexual acts that they'd previously found off-putting suddenly became much more appealing in their aroused state. The number interested in having intercourse with an obese woman, anal sex, and bestiality, for example, shot up 11 percent, 67 percent, and 167 percent, respectively."
Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly, it looks to me that if a young man gets horny enough, he'll prefer fucking an animal two-and-a-half to one over a human's asshole, and FIFTEEN-to-one over an obese woman. And he'll prefer the human asshole six-to-one over the obese woman.
Did I get that right?
Seems kinda shitty to me that straight non-zoo men would rather have sex with an animal than an overweight woman, to be honest. Or that having sex with an overweight woman is even put in the same category as sex with an animal to non-zoos.
Well, to be truthful, I think I got that wrong, but what's presented was meaningless without some kind of baseline given. For example, prior to the jerkoff, they might have rated the fat chick at minus eleven, the asshole at minus 67, and the animal at minus 167. Then after the jerkoff, they'd all be equal--at zero.
I'm sure there are other possibilities ... somebody here probably knows the math for it.
167 percent does not mean much. If only two of a thousand folks are "interested in bestiality" before, and five after the test, you also get an increasement rate of 150%. Doesn´t say much about the absolute figures, eh? "Never trust a statistic you haven´t forged yourself" [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> Well, I´d add "and interpreted according to what you want to prove with it".
I also believe that these folks admitting an "interest in bestiality" are just victims of the adrenaline rush you naturally experience during any form of sexual arousal. KNowing how many people are into animal porn despite never ever acting out on this, I´d assume that you have to separate things here; getting aroused by animal stuff does not in the slightest equal real sexual attraction to animals at all. It is known that porn triggers the very same neurochemical mechanisms as drug use and similar patterns can be observed in both...so I´d assume that this 167% increase is mainly owed to exactly these mechanisms, basically the same as losing control when drinking alcohol. And even the folks that are "into bestiality stuff" before could easily be just the average thrillseekers, taboobreakers and the common "mixoscopia bestialis" victims getting aroused by simply watching a woman being degraded by having sex with an animal. So, no new light shed by this.
Did you know, 37.4% of all statistics are totally made up numbers!
03-25-2018, 04:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2018, 04:34 AM by heavyhorse.)
Quote:
22 minutes ago, threelegs said:
Well, to be truthful, I think I got that wrong, but what's presented was meaningless without some kind of baseline given. For example, prior to the jerkoff, they might have rated the fat chick at minus eleven, the asshole at minus 67, and the animal at minus 167. Then after the jerkoff, they'd all be equal--at zero.
I'm sure there are other possibilities ... somebody here probably knows the math for it.
Yes, I agree; without knowing the baseline it's impossible to gauge the increase. But the magnitude of the increase still says something. More than twice as many people considered it after they got aroused.
And, um, Thanks! Their responses made my day!
Ummm...I guess someone hasn´t paid much attention in math class....if there´s an increase from 1 to 167, it´s NOT an 167% increase, but an increas of 16700 precent. If 1 increases to 2 , it´s already an increase of 100%....
03-25-2018, 05:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2018, 05:38 AM by FoxDogCatWolf.)
I haven't read that book, but it doesn't sound that terrible at all. It's most likely an extension of the germ theory of disease, which is becoming old.
Disgust is largely (this is not proven in human experiments but likely) a serotonergic mechanism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16928421
The primary bodily defense against parasites is mast cells, and these release histamine and serotonin, outside the brain; but the mast cells can migrate to the brain and release serotonin there; and the brain likely uses serotonin in such a way even without mast cells. [This makes some assumptions about the book title; viruses and some bacteria trigger different immune responses different from mast cells; these are usually not referred to as 'parasites'; the book however I assume includes these]
However this doesn't guarantee any response about sexuality: the most abundant serotonin receptors increase prolactin, which tends to attenuate sexuality, and they can also attenuate steroid production. The main ways in which [mast cells] can increase sexuality is by increased histamine release and nitric oxide.
Those extrapolations about sexuality are probably pure conjecture, there's no way they can know that at this point in history. Pure psychological questionnaires are basically worthless.
I can recommend a book on a similar subject: Life On Man by Theodor Rosebury. It mostly deals with microbes and the human quest for cleanliness, but it's nonetheless an interesting read. Seems to me it touches on the subject of bestiality at one point, though it's been quite a few years since I read it. Might need to dig it out.
Quote:
23 hours ago, 30-30 said:
Ummm...I guess someone hasn´t paid much attention in math class....if there´s an increase from 1 to 167, it´s NOT an 167% increase, but an increas of 16700 precent. If 1 increases to 2 , it´s already an increase of 100%....
I know, it's one-and-two-thirds times greater ... doesn't sound as impressive that way.
|
