Why are so many Chyoa authors guys?

I was taking a look around a story that I write for (The Affection Multiplier, maybe you've heard of it ) when I noticed something interesting: Out of the 14 people with branches, 10 are guys, 4 haven't officially put down a gender, and all write from a male POV. Personally, it seems like a lion's share of stories I come across have guys authoring the branches.

Now, of course, this is just anecdotal, but it does seem strange, especially when one considers that the official statistics seem to suggest that erotica skews rather female (link to the Guardian)—over 53% of women read it compared to 32% of men, or a 65% difference!

I decided to run a very small experiment. I hit the Random Story button thirty times and tracked the gender of the author that created the story. Below are the results:

Male: 16
Female: 7
Unknown: 7

In some cases, I inferred gender from username when it wasn't posted (ex/ nathan12943 ), but only if it was very obviously male/female. The story we get is pretty clear: lots of men writing, relatively few women (or non-men) writing. And if anything, our experiment might be biased to skew towards more women! (This link suggests that erotica writers might try to present as female: https://www.alessandratorre.com/blog/male-versus-female-erotica-authors --- I don't know how true that is in practice though.)

So, what gives? Is it the game-style branches of Chyoa that attracts men to the site? Or a snowball effect where the site started out mostly male and happened to stay that way? Or am I just wrong in my observation, and there are tons of girls writing in corners of the site I don't frequent?

But seriously, guys (and some smaller number of non-guys), any thoughts?

 

I think we could say that Chyoa is where males who like erotica gathers.
Maninstream erotica, targeted to women, it's probably not the same cup of tea of what gets written here, mostly.
I honestly cant even bear the thought of reading something along the lines of Fifty shades of gray, to be obvious.

This happens often in other places, at least according to my experience.
I could imagine several different reasons behind that.

 

I think the audience here probably also skews towards the younger and geekier than most other erotica sites, which does mean more guys. Probably something to do with the whole choose your own adventure aspect, which has its routes in nerd subculture, as well as the more gamey way of going through a story by choosing the right/wrong options. You can see that in the interest fantasy/sci-fi stories receive, as well as those inspired by Japanese media.

 

Because statistics are bullshit, especially when they do not correlate to observed reality.
I find that mainstream opinion no longer mirrors reality, and instead mirrors a very insular society which is firmly entrenched in dogma that would make a Byzantine priest throw up his hands and call bullshit with its complexity.

 

Could be a bit of a lunchroom seating effect. Like the class all enters the lunchroom and it's like, no, it isn't segregated, but everyone still sits with people who look like them. So if the first authors here were predominantly male, could be women thought "it's not really for me" and went elsewhere.

I have to admit, sometimes I get curious about who likes my work and start digging. It always interests me when I get female likes. As a straight guy who mostly writes stuff I want to read, it's always kind of exciting to see if I have cross appeal!

Anyway, I hope it's a place women feel comfortable writing as well.

 

There are no girls on the internet.

If you're female and you don't want to get messages by horny guys, you might choose "male"
On the other hand, if you're male and want to get additional attention, you might choose "female"

 

From a purely scientific perspective, 30 trials is nowhere near enough evidence to draw any conclusions. 150 might be better, not that anyone has the time to do so.
And yeah, any perceptions will be muddled by those who pretend to be another gender, for various reasons. I have no idea which way that would skew things.

I think it's mostly the snowball effect. Not to mention, the ability to choose the direction of the story appeals to power fantasies, and I would guess that men are more aroused by feelings of dominance than women, who might prefer romance. Most of the stuff on this site is straight up porn without plot, whereas formally published erotica tends to be more 'artistic', if you will. I suppose men are less willing to sit through several chapters of build-up, while women actually prefer it.

 

In what way are statistics not a form of observed reality? And whose observations are we measuring the correlation against? In my case, at least, I can confirm that, outside of CHYOA, I have found the world of erotica to be primarily dominated by women.

 

Depends on trusting far too many people.
You have to assume that every single person is not only telling the truth, but has no agenda whatsoever for their response.
You see things one way, I see them another, and statistics tend to be used as an appeal to authority rather than a reflection of anything tangible these days.

Pick the right Jury, after all, and you can find that 80% will claim that Masturbating to tastefully arranged fruit is in fact the highest form of enlightenment.

But also keep in mind that I AM a Discordian, and Half of what I say is bullshit, the other half is also bullshit, and therefore nothing I say is to be believed.
I'm also forbidden from believing anything I read. On the other hand, That MAY not apply to what I write... still processing on that one.

Edit: A Erisian Koan comes to mind:
A man who checks the toilet seat every single time is not paranoid, he just lives in a world with too many assholes.

 

There aren't going to be that many agendas involved in determining who reads more sexy literature. It's pretty much always been women, whether online or not. Just look at all the muscled chests and bulging biceps on display on the covers of an adult literature section of your local bookshop. Most guys are satisfied with just porn. The more interesting question for me is whether that's innate, or if it is more of a socialization thing. Could be either as far as I know.

I do agree with mistrusting most informal surveys, but statistics are still a useful way of looking at the world. Especially when they're done scientifically, where bias can be accounted for. If you have a large enough sample size and do the math properly anyway they tend to reflect the truth. Without them we'd be pretty screwed anyway because. You just have to be careful and look at what kind of study they're coming from.

 

Science. Are you speaking of the control experiment model? Because a Survey absolutely doesn't fall under that. It's fungible, based off no math, which is the basis of all science. If it can't be expressed in raw math, it's not science, according to the dogma.

Bias, is of course, merely a figment of imagination, because all science can be interpreted as pure math. Therefore, since all science is based off pure math, all science is true. Math is True because it is true. This is not subject to debate by anyone taking the debate seriously.

I wonder what the mathematical value of bias in a specific demographic is. However, according to current Dogma, bias is of course a matter of entrenched power structures, therefore any math cannot be taken seriously, unless the power structure that reports the math is accounted for. No other category can be taken seriously, because according to current gender theory there is no difference between men and women, except for socialization, therefore X=Y on all categories not accounted for by the abstract value of Bias, which is only not quantified due to human error, which accounts for all discrepancies in the math.

In other words... I just wrote a HELL of a lot of bullshit above. Because I respect your opinion, and totally disagree with it. I figure anybody in a lab coat who says the word science is trying to get me to turn off my brain. But you know... I figured you deserved a bunch of fun rambling stuff that shows I don't even take my own theories seriously. We all believe what we believe, and if I made you smile, I did my job.

Hail Eris!

 

Think you can find a lot of studies on the fact that men are more susceptible to visual stimuli than women.
Starting from that, you could say that men who write erotica have a more visual style.
Still, when talking about a quick gratification, plain porn remains probably more easy to come by.

 

Statistical data is bullshit only when there is no information on how it was gathered. Otherwise, it is a useful tool to observe reality. And it is far better than anecdotycal observation.

 

Somebody wrote it down, therefore I can't believe it. Because the writing down is itself a representation of an anecdote, wherein the supposed objective observer makes a recording of an event that only was experienced from their point of view. As such, if they are presented with numerous accounts confirming said observation, it is considered acceptable, even though such things are indeed anecdotes and human observations. If those observations are edited afterwords, even through the supposed need to clarify, they are indeed also no longer a correct record of anything but a singular opinion.

Hence, all supposed data is in fact anecdote. Confirmation bias itself, which has been established as a major factor, results in anecdote confirming said previous belief. As a result, the supposed objective tool is in fact a lens which distorts in one direction or another. Twisted another way the exact same observations can result in a completely different analysis and supposed truth.

But, of course, I could also be totally wrong, because as mentioned above, I talk a lot of bullshit myself. I respect your opinion, and that you disagreed with me honestly and openly, and as such felt the best way I could show appreciation was a long rambling bit of pseudo philosophy which showed I like talking here, and that I don't really take myself too seriously.

 

The theory you describe is called solipsism.

I will consider evidence that contradicts the idea that erotica is primarily dominated by women. The mere possibility of being incorrect, however, is a given, and does not consitute evidence on its own. It is possible to strongly believe something while realising you could be totally wrong; reducing your emotional investment in your position is a fairly good way around confirmation bias.

 

But of course, I don't really care about the position, because it's a joke. Therefore, I must defend it to the absolute upmost, including becoming extremely offended by the suggestion that what I am saying is in fact a tautology in itself. Because if I took on the outward appearance of any other religion or philosophy, I would of course be a GOOD Discordian, because we are required to steal liberally from everyone and everything, and then grin and say "Who Me? No, It was the One-Armed Man!"

I must not of course, become emotionally invested in anything, because emotion is one of the things that gets in the way of logic. As we also know from the gospel of Spock, it also requires you to become extremely offended by anybody who brings up the fact that you regularly go home to have a combination mating gladiatorial match/whine fest while nobody is watching, because dammit you have an appearance to keep up, and what would the neighbors think!

Whatever you do, don't be like those weirdos down in the city square walking around with pitchforks and torches and saying they're looking for an honest men to follow.

Again, totally respect and love that folks disagree with me. Because folks are never going to convince me, but it's fun to see the arguments, and I'll happily write jokes all day for you in payment.

Edit: Or... putting it in Zen Buddhist Terms. The point of arguing on the internet... is to argue on the internet.

 

I think mankind has long time dismissed these silly sophisms.
Thankfully we can stand on the shoulders of giants

Logic is mathematic, mathematic helps us unterstand how the world works, but it's just a model.
In the same fashion, words are means to express concepts, they are not those concepts themselves.

Can you imagine a world where you have to experience directly anything to determine if it truly exists or not?
I would be like being deaf and wandering in a mist so thick you could barely see one arm away...

 

I very much agree. While a degree of skepticism is helpful, trusting in the experiences of others too is a part of the human condition. If we doubt everything, normal life becomes impossible. Solipsism is a trap that goes nowhere. If nothing is real, then what's the point in doing anything? What's the point in talking to anyone else if you can't believe anything they say?

I also think there's a kind of arrogance to it. Believing that you're the one source of truth and all.

 

Statistics can easily be presented in a misleading manner or skewed intentionally or unintentionally. They do say something about reality, its just that it probably doesn't mean what any human thinks it means.

 

I was under the distinct impression that Logic was the purview of pointy eared aliens with red skin... no wait, that's the FIRST draft of that. I believe that all tools are in fact quite useful when used for their intended purpose. However, refusing to see that a tool can be easily abused is to be that police sergeant who is dumbfounded when a man manages to commit suicide without a gun in a locked room, surrounded by nothing but power tools and farm equipment.

Of course once you acknowledge it is a model, and a game, you have to remember that every fucking game has hackers and cheaters. And dammit, if they don't always brag about how they're better than you at the game when they do it!

And your exact analogy is why Discordians always offer large Mist Clearing Fans for sale, only 19.99! We only accept coins. We're also thinking about Hiring Heavy From Team Fortress 2 for the ad campaign, because we really like his singing voice and think he needs more work.