Well yes. One of the reasons being gay was accepted was that they supposedly had no choice in the matter. According to that logic, paedophilia should also be acceptable.
Legally, pedophilia is acceptable. Child molestation is not. Socially...I sort of agree with you. I wish people would chill out a little about pedophilia, just enough so that people who know they are pedophiles, and want to make sure that they never hurt any kids, can get help without fear of being stoned to death.
[quote
Most people fall into a spectrum but that shouldn't mean we can't compare differences. Mixed race people exist, does that mean there is no difference between black / white / asian people? Most people are of average stature, but does that mean there is no point in studying dwarves and giants?[/quote]
Well, you're right that it wasn't an *absolutely perfect* comparison. Sexuality is more fluid, and has a broader gray area than race, much of the time.
At least, if you ignore Hispanic people who are not obviously white or black, and are not generally considered a part of either group.
The thing is that the vast majority of people have *some* attraction to both sexes. Gay people generally recognize that more than straight people do. So, studying the "differences" between gay people and straight people is a lot like studying the differences between people who like Elvis and people who like the Beatles. There are more similarities than differences, and a lot of overlap between the two.
That said, studying how sexuality develops is perfectly reasonable. And since, if this is the study I'm thinking of, part of the point of the study was to compare people's desires to how they identify. Maybe it was done in a reasonable way. Could be... Though, in that case, I'd think a better way to do it would be to ask an open-ended "Describe your sexual orientation," rather than a "Gay/Straight/Bi" question.
As for the OP, which I haven't really addressed, studies like this show that women are more easily physically aroused by people of both genders. Or, from the other angle, that men are more confined to the specific gender that they prefer.
Physical arousal =/= sexual orientation.
Physical arousal in response to erotic imagery *definitely* =/= sexual orientation.
For example, personally, I'm gay, but I prefer male/female erotica much of the time. Why? Because what I like in erotica is *not* primarily the image. What I like is seeing the dynamic between the people--the emotional/psychological interplay.
Most female/female erotica of the subtype that I enjoy is *extremely* inappropriate contenty. All about obviously acting a certain way with almost no real chemistry between the models.
A lot of male/female is the same, but there is also a lot that is playful, fun and teasy without the overdone "acting." *That* is what I like. I like it whether it's in male/male, male/female or female/female combinations, though I prefer for there to be at least one woman involved.
I suspect that many women are the same. At least in that there's an emotional and psychological component to erotica that is more important than the gender combination.
My straight sister has a picture on her wall of two women, in bed, partially clothed and kissing. Why? Because, as she puts it, it's good photography and good modeling. You can *believe* that the people are in love, and there is passion behind it. That they're both women is incidental, where she's concerned. Just like the men in my erotica are incidental. What matters is the chemistry.