Talk:Penile plethysmograph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Unassessed	rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Regarding stimuli, there are still plenty of researchers using explicit depictions of sexual activity in their stimuli sets. Do a quick topline on Pubmed for citations. Granted, it is hackwork by a clique at Northwestern University led by J. Michael Bailey, but they are using explicit stimuli nonetheless. Jokestress 14:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the Jokestress would like to expand on her denouncement of the Bailey clique - why is it that she views the research as "hackwork"? 66.241.140.2 20:10, 19 May 2005

Bailey and friends are engaged in modern-day phrenology. They have used pseudoscientific methodology and devices to promote their pet theories. Real scientists are looking at the brain, not the groin, for data on sexual differentiation in sexual orientation. The best example was Bailey and friends' 2003 science by press release heralding findings using transsexual women as a control group. The Northwestern press release asserted these subjects had "the brains of men but the genitals of women." Obviously, those who are transsexual do not have typical "brains of men" (whatever that means), and they are poor controls because their brains may have been altered by exogenous hormones. Note that the press release is no longer available in the Northwestern online PR archives. Those interested in a serious discussion of sexual orientation research should look at the work being done via fMRI and other legitimate biometric devices. Jokestress 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not exactly "real scientists" looking at the brain. It's "rich scientists". 65.34.186.143 1 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Since Bailey's "bonerology" work has been taxpayer-funded, and he is involved in a $2.1 million NIH study of homosexuality, I wouldn't exactly call him a "poor scientist," unless we are talking about ethics and methodology. In that instance, I'd say he's one of the poorest scientists working today. Jokestress 2 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

[edit] Use in Employment Screenings (?)

Does any part of the world use such devices to screen job applicants for jobs that involve working with children? (So when they view a slideshow of attractive women, then attractive men, then attractive underage girls, then attractive underage boys, this PPS graph indicates who they're attracted to)

If yes, what parts of the world and why? --Shultz 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

From one of the sources listed in the entry:

"Some of the uses of the device raise constitutional issues. For example, submission to the PPG test as a condition for employment, for enlistment into the armed forces, or for granting custody of children. Some penal institutions have made submission to the PPG a condition of parole, even though the device's usefulness as a predictor of behavior is unproven. The practice has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (1995). Parole Boards have great latitude in establishing conditions for parole. These conditions do not have to meet the same rigorous standards as are required before something allegedly scientific can be admitted as evidence in a trial. Nor do the normal liberties and constitutional protections of citizenship automatically apply to one being paroled."

"From a scientific, moral and legal point of view, what should matter is whether a person gives in to perverse desires and commits sex crimes. It is neither immoral nor a crime to get aroused." [1] Jokestress 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims on evidence-gathering capabilities

The US section makes some very strong claims on definitiveness of the results, giving no specific sources. I've tagged them with citeneeded's, but unless someone actually goes and finds reliable articles to support them, I'd suggest removing those claims. Strong statements regarding credibility in criminal cases simply cannot go without verifiable sources. mathrick 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The statements are from the Smith citation in the references. I'll pull the quotes sometime soon unless you want to. Jokestress 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This IP editor injected all the unsourced original research. I removed all of it and will source the rest appropriately. Jokestress 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)