Discussion:
Validity and ethics of penile circumference measures of sexual
(too old to reply)
Your Government
2017-03-12 16:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wheeler and Rubin (1987) advanced evidence that penile volume
responses (PVRs) were no more sensitive than penile
circumference responses (PCRs) in measuring erection which the
authors incorrectly identified with sexual arousal. Knowledge of
the literature would have led them to question that
identification and the methodology of their study. PVRs have
repeatedly been demonstrated to assess validly not erection but
the sexual orientation of individuals, when derived from the
early stage of erectile response to brief stimuli that were from
their onset of moderate erotic strength. PCR assessment has been
of the degree of erection to stimuli of 2-10 min duration. No
success has been reported using PCR measures of erection to
classify subjects individually as to their sexual orientation.
Classification of groups of 30 but not 6 homosexuals was
successful using their PCRs to nudes. Attempts to identify
rapists and pedophiles from normals, and aggressive from
nonaggressive rapists and pedophiles by PCRs have failed to be
replicated. In comparing PVRs and PCRs, Wheeler and Rubin used
as stimuli three 10-min presentations of a film which apparently
did not immediately introduce erotic material. This procedure
would not elicit meaningful PVRs. Though never validated as a
measure of individuals' sexual arousal, PCR measures of erection
are currently widely recommended for assessment and determining
treatment of individual sex offenders. If these assessments
could affect or are believed by the offenders to affect the
outcome of the legal processes in which they are involved, the
procedure is not only scientifically unsupported, it is
unethical.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673137
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-12 21:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Government
Wheeler and Rubin (1987) advanced evidence
What does this have to do with atheism?
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Mr. B1ack
2017-03-25 02:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:26:48 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Your Government
Wheeler and Rubin (1987) advanced evidence
What does this have to do with atheism?
Not much ... except maybe as an example of
people eager to use questionable, but perhaps
"emotionally correct" data as proof of something.

Mr. B1ack
2017-03-25 02:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:32:56 +0100 (CET), "Your Government"
Post by Your Government
Wheeler and Rubin (1987) advanced evidence that penile volume
responses (PVRs) were no more sensitive than penile
circumference responses (PCRs) in measuring erection which the
authors incorrectly identified with sexual arousal. Knowledge of
the literature would have led them to question that
identification and the methodology of their study. PVRs have
repeatedly been demonstrated to assess validly not erection but
the sexual orientation of individuals, when derived from the
early stage of erectile response to brief stimuli that were from
their onset of moderate erotic strength. PCR assessment has been
of the degree of erection to stimuli of 2-10 min duration. No
success has been reported using PCR measures of erection to
classify subjects individually as to their sexual orientation.
Classification of groups of 30 but not 6 homosexuals was
successful using their PCRs to nudes. Attempts to identify
rapists and pedophiles from normals, and aggressive from
nonaggressive rapists and pedophiles by PCRs have failed to be
replicated. In comparing PVRs and PCRs, Wheeler and Rubin used
as stimuli three 10-min presentations of a film which apparently
did not immediately introduce erotic material. This procedure
would not elicit meaningful PVRs. Though never validated as a
measure of individuals' sexual arousal, PCR measures of erection
are currently widely recommended for assessment and determining
treatment of individual sex offenders. If these assessments
could affect or are believed by the offenders to affect the
outcome of the legal processes in which they are involved, the
procedure is not only scientifically unsupported, it is
unethical.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673137
It's just the usual witch-hunting stuff ... find some
"objective" measure that'll "prove" somebody is a
witch. It's easy, it's convenient, it seems reasonable
to the average Joe. The witches get hanged and the
community is at peace again and the flow of tax
money increases.
Loading...