The Eyes Have It: Pupil Sexual Orientation Report

“The Eyes Have It: Pupil Dilation Indicates Sexuality” is a report published in Livescience. The issue addressed in the report was the relationship between pupil dilation and sexual orientations. Previous research methods measuring sexual orientations, such as self-report and genital arousal, can be misleading because these acts are conscious and can be affected by social and cultural factors. A new study conducted by researchers from Cornell University revealed that how the pupils react can access a person’s sexual orientation. For example, when a straight man sees a sexy woman, his pupils will dilate while the pupils of a homosexual man will expand when he sees a handsome man. Women and men have different pupils reactions when they receive

In the research article, Rieger and Savin-Williams mainly explain sexual differences in pupil dilation from the perspective of evolution and adaption. Women are weaker and it is easier for them to encounter rapes. In order to protect themselves from being hurt by force, they display sexual arousal to stimuli from both sexes because the lubrication can help reduce the risk of injury. The report’s opinions were in line with those in the research article. In this part, the report used a wrong word, which made it less accurate. It used “sexual simulation” (Matthews, 2012) while I think it should be “sexual stimuli”. Apart from this view, the report also discussed from the point of view of brain structure, which was not included in the original research article. When it comes to bisexual men, the report addressed the dispute on bisexual men. The facts and opinions mentioned in the report were consistent with the research. The report did not discuss bisexual women.
The report also discussed the advantages of pupil dilation accurately. It could help the research reach more and wider samples, such as minors. However, the report failed to encompass the limitations of pupil dilations. As was stated in the research article, pupil dilations could be affected by noise, such as “luminance and cognitive load” (Rieger & Savin-Williams, 2012). For example, it might be unethical to look at naked men and women. Furthermore, the participants could control the time spent on the video. Therefore, not all pupil data in the research was objective and