"Even though the majority of women identify as straight, our research clearly demonstrates that when it comes to what turns them on, they are either bisexual or gay, but never straight," Dr Riegler said.

He also said the study showed lesbians who may dress in a more masculine manner may not have more masculine behaviours.

"Although some lesbians were more masculine in their sexual arousal, and others were more masculine in their behaviours, there was no indication that these were the same women.

"This shows us that how women appear in public does not mean that we know anything about their sexual role preferences."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-never-straight-they-are-either-gay-or-bisexual-study-suggests-a6723276.html

That's quite the unusual conclusion.

last edited at Nov 10, 2015 2:20AM

That is...weird. How do you study that, anyways?

A study like that comes around like once a year. There was one that said women were aroused by monkeys having sex. Some people still say everybody is bi. In the end, they always end up meaning nothing because they are way too superficial and release before someone attests the study's credibility.

Also, the sample size was 235 women. Heh.

last edited at Nov 10, 2015 2:29AM

I read that study. It's a little inaccurate as well as misleading to bottle up sexuality as simply a response to stimuli.

This study's method monitored physical reactions that people have no control over. Even when the body is forced into nonconsensual intercourse there is a physical reactions taking place. So sure, women responded in a way to viewing sexual stimulus. But sexuality goes beyond that, and I'd disagree to the reduced conclusion that all women are gay because of it. As much as I'd like to believe it.

Take the conclusion with a hefty dash of salt.

This seems to me one of those stupid articles with flashy titles to capture the attention...

The general response I've been hearing is that the actual studies use methodology that makes it all but impossible to confidently make that kind of conclusion. There's little control for cultural conditioning, and as OriginalGengar points out, it's a tiny sample size. And of course science reporting at the Independent (and pretty much every other news source) is so piss-poor that might not be what the study said in the first place.

For that last point, I refer you to this comic.

Great. It means I can hit on just about any girl I fancy and I will get a positive feedback.

Oh wait. Doesn't work that way.

In addition to the extrapolation by journalists that's already been pointed out, I'd like to add that the guy responsible for this "discovery" also supposedly proved that bisexual men don't exist. This page has a compilation of his dubious research.

In addition to the extrapolation by journalists that's already been pointed out, I'd like to add that the guy responsible for this "discovery" also supposedly proved that bisexual men don't exist. This page has a compilation of his dubious research.

And I see the study is co-authored by arch transphobe J. Michael Bailey as well. Shouldn't be at all surprised I guess.

For those who don't know, Bailey is the arsehole who came up with "autogynephelia", basically saying that trans women were either gay men looking for straight dude dick, or straight men who are so profoundly turned on by women that they turn themselves into women to get their sexual fix. So his involvement taints the study even if Rieger weren't dodgy enough to start with.