comments_imageCOMMENTS: 70

Bonobo Sex and 'Ladyboners': Is Women's Desire Really that Confusing?

Current research seems to consider men's arousal to be straightforward, while women's is presented as weird and abnormal.
February 3, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

The top story of the week has been about the ladyboner.

"What Do Women Want?," an article about new research into female arousal, published in the NYT magazine, has been the most read story for five straight days, lit up the blogosphere and sparked a lightning storm of comments at the NYT and in blogs. Many sites have had to close their comments early, unable to keep up. The deepening financial crisis has been pushed aside.

The very long story, long blog posts, and longer list of letters are all deeply complex, confusing, contradictory, fraught, fascinating and overwhelming. Kind of like the overarching metaphor in the piece, first articulated by Meredith Chivers, a 36-year-old psychology professor at Queens University, and one of the scientists whose work is profiled: "I feel like a pioneer at the edge of a giant forest."

I'm thrilled people are trying to understand the ladyboner (blogger slang for female arousal that you won't find in the Times piece); amazed by the dedication of the scientists and the intelligent and nuanced approach of the writer; and delighted that the attempt to shed some light on what makes women's privates work has moved past the suggestion that we get out our lipstick mirrors and take a look "down there." Who wouldn't be?

Women: Nature's Rubik's Cube?

The body of information (sorry) about men's arousal is disproportionately swollen (sorry, again) because most scientists have been male, and most of the cultural focus has been on how to arouse men. And only recently, with a sudden "critical mass" of female scientists, and articles like this, has there been a serious attempt to address the "problem" Freud posed over a century ago: "The great question that has never been answered and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my 30 years of research into the feminine soul, is, What does a woman want?"

Bonobo Sex, Yes or No?

There are some fascinating findings but, as I'll get back to in a minute, they all contain some hand wringing. First, some findings about flexosexuality (my term) or heteroflexibility (Slate's term). Meredith Chivers hooked up a plethysmograph (an apparatus that fits over the penis or in the vagina and measures blood flow), and gave subjects a keypad to indicate arousal, then showed men and women, both straight and gay, short clips of bonobo monkeys having sex, of human heterosexual sex, male and female homosexual sex, a man masturbating, a woman masturbating, a chiseled man walking naked on a beach and a well-toned woman doing calisthenics in the nude.

The men responded the same way genitally and through the keypad. The heterosexual men were aroused by heterosexual or lesbian sex, by the masturbating and exercising women, and were unmoved by the other clips. The gay males were aroused in "the opposite categorical pattern."

But "all was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men ... with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren't in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos."

Interesting, but oh so confusing and worrying!


Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: sex, gender, women, sexuality research, fantasies


Comments are closed-

Straight Males
Posted by: Kilantra on Feb 3, 2009 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't for one instance buy the notion that straight men are only aroused by heterosexual or lesbian porn, or that gay men are only aroused by gay porn.

In these studies there was nothing to determine who straight men were aroused by when watching heterosexual porn. Just because they were watching heterosexual porn doesn't mean that it was soley the female's participation or organs that caused the straight men arousal. Believe it or not, there are straight men who only see themselves as straight and are aroused by the idea of being with another straight man, and repulsed by the idea of sex with a gay man.

These researches also underestimate the ability of some men to control their sexual response. It's not simply Pavlovian for many men and women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Straight Males Posted by: maddy
» RE: Straight Males Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» RE: Straight Males Posted by: Livemike

Comments are closed-

What really gets women hot
Posted by: takebayashi on Feb 3, 2009 10:20 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What really gets most women hot is....good genes and social status. That's right, when they see a man they admire, because of his good looks, worldly success/wealth (or his family's), nice clothes, intelligence, smooth-talk, physical strength or skill/prowess, they get hot, because they want to have his babies. And it helps if the woman is fertile at the time, the guy appears to be available, and he makes a pass at her. All the Romeos know this. That's why the rich, aggressive, nattily-dressed, sports car-driving frat boys usually get the girls. If they aren't too intelligent, at least they know how to play the game. And I do mean game. And that's what really matters in human society. I didn't figure this out until I was a 50 year old loser and I asked myself "why"? Only fools believe in love....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: takebayashi
» It's not sad . . . Posted by: Scientz
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: littlepitcher
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: takebayashi
» RE: "not comprehensive" Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Pheromones???
Posted by: pelican beak on Feb 4, 2009 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The study was based on purely visual cues. It may well be that sexual behavior is also significantly based on cues from aromas we scarcely consciously notice. The scientists struck me as eggheads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pheromones??? Posted by: maddy
» RE: Pheromones??? Posted by: Gisele

Comments are closed-

The most moronic paragraph I've ever read is this part:
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 4, 2009 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The body of information (sorry) about men's arousal is disproportionately swollen (sorry, again) because most scientists have been male, and most of the cultural focus has been on how to arouse men.

The cultural focus has been on how to arouse men? Seriously?

Perhaps in the advertising/scientific community, that is the case. But that is relatively minor research, and is definitely minor spending, compared to the overall research being done.

Almost all of the disposable income by single heterosexual men between the ages 18-25, is spent directly on researching what arouses women.....

Now admittedly, there haven't been the great successes in this research, partially because the subject is so difficult, and partially because the best researchers usually quit the field and stick with one test subject..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Unscientific
Posted by: Mewabe on Feb 4, 2009 11:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with this so called research is that there is no effort to distinguish between behaviors that stem from conditioning and those that are rooted in innate psychological or sexual characteristics.
That even some "feminists" want a man to dominate or take charge, or initiate, is not necessarily physiological but could be due to centuries of the patriarchal subjugation of women.
Even in the animal kingdom, some species produce aggressive and dominant females.
This research seems to be based on a reluctance to upset mainstream perceptions.
Might as well compile a bunch of cliches and call it a day, this is ridiculously superficial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unscientific Posted by: PirateJesus
» RE: Unscientific Posted by: RR#1
» RE: Bonobos, Posted by: oregoncharles
» Thank you! Posted by: SalB

Comments are closed-

Confusing
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 6, 2009 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The second-to-last paragraph of the article is the critical one. If you get sex down to a science, the human race would die off due to lack of interest in it. It wouldn't be the same without all of the confusion, frustration, heartache and expense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I really don't think so. Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

No wonder we're confused.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Feb 6, 2009 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was my thought when I finished the original article (which is too long for Alternet, but much clearer about the research than this review.)

But "worrying" is this writer's own gloss. The scientists (all women - did she mention that?) may be worried by apparently contradictory results, but not in the broader sense implied here. Evidently, the system works well enough that there are too damn many of us. SOMEBODY's getting it on.

Neither article mentions a fundamental reason for the confusion: human sexuality is a very new thing, and the change is almost entirely in women. Human evolution essentially transferred male-pattern, continuous sexuality to women. The arrangement is shared only with bonobos, our nearest cousins. Evidently, it works a little differently in its new setting; the biggest difference appears to be women's remarkable polymorphism, and the disjunct between physical and mental arousal. Note that both are partly artifacts of the research setup. In real social situations, the mind is mostly in control, so its primacy buries the potential distinction. And this research doesn't address at all what women want IN MEN - always men's chief concern, and highly cultural.

One reason the researchers are confused may be that women's sexuality is so new that it's still evolving, hence quite unstable and variable. The evolutionist Steven Jay Gould proposed this idea years ago; he greatly underestimated cultural impacts in an antisexual and antifemale culture, but his point remains valid.

In other words, women themselves are still finding out what they want. Which I guess is the human condition.

Read the original article; it's very illuminating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: P.S.: the plethysmograph... Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Eliminating Other Categories
Posted by: Gravitas on Feb 6, 2009 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A chiseled man, well toned woman" It should be noted that some people have preferences for other than what the culture dictates. Chiseled men do not do it for me. If I got to know someone who had other qualities I admire I might come to love one. However, simply looking at a pic of someone who is ripped does not arouse anything in me as my strictly physical preference is for ample men. It is also estimated that 1 in 10 men prefer round to thin women. There is a small number of men who can't even get an erection with a thin woman. So to add to the confusion...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

While looking through the link to cheney, er, hitler~~
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Feb 6, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found out why police are called cops.

"coprophile"

You can look it up.
It fits them perfectly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Women, women, women, women
Posted by: cindyn on Feb 6, 2009 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
everything is always about women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sexual Dichotomy
Posted by: marizara on Feb 6, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay attention here, guys, and learn something important. -- Men are driven sexually first by visual cues, and then mental/hormonal responses. -- Women, on the other hand, are driven first by mental/hormonal cues, then by tactile cues. -- While a man has clearly defined erogenous zones, women's are far more diffuse. -- Actually, a woman's entire body and being is one gigantic erogenous zone. -- That is why women can vary so much in what turns them on. -- It's also what drives men crazy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sexual Dichotomy Posted by: Gisele
» RE: Sexual Dichotomy Posted by: pelican beak

Comments are closed-

A physical difference.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Feb 6, 2009 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Possibly the most striking result of Chivers' research is that women were so often aroused without knowing, or maybe admitting, it. This wasn't true of men. There may be a simple reason for the difference:

An erection is pretty hard to overlook. It's, well, prominent, and even uncomfortable if your pants are snug. Women's arousal is more subtle. There has to be a physical sensation involved, but that can be ignored, especially if it conflicts with conscious inclinations - or our cultural prejudices against female sexuality.

And of course, men have little fear of admitting they're turned on. In any case, they have little choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not to be too graphic here... Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Let's quit studying sex and just have sex!
Posted by: ThinkLife on Feb 6, 2009 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it sad and frustrating that the only "legitimate" way to talk about sex in the mainstream media--how it works, how to get it, that you want it, or what you like about it--is in response to some dry-as-toast scientific report???

All the while, we're barraged by media images of hunky men swilling beer and skimpily clad women touting the benefits of Viagra and other eros-inducing pills--or selling things that have nothing to do with sex whatsoever! While politicians and corporate heads and everyone else seek out hookers, call girls and online porn sites!

While "page three lovelies" pop their boobies at you in the British press. (I have to admit, I looked up a picture of Samara Ginsberg, the author of a recent piece on AlterNet, "Women Have Boobs--Get Over It." Well, I can't get over it. I love boobs! And all the rest of women's bodies, too!)

Hell, enough science and analysis. The Puritans bore me. So do scientists--unless they look like Gisele Bundchen. (I'm guessing 95% of male readers are with me on this--not necessarily on my choice of hottie, though.)

So who wants to have sex? With me! Yes, right now, by email, sending pictures, a lust-drenched phone call or meeting me for a "liquid lunch"--I don't care how!

LET'S JUST DO IT!

Please be female, attractive, slim-to-average, between 18-50, petite, horny, smart, dumb or anything in-between. (Uh, actually you had me at 'female.')

I'm 40ish, tall, handsome, smart and funny. And horny. Just repeating so everything's clear: Pretty darn horny.

And yes, I'm serious about the offer, as well as about making a point!

It's trite, I know--but true--that I like sunsets, movies, romantic dinners, cuddling...and sweaty slurpy gooey gummy SEX--before, during and after all of that...mmmmm.

Bend over Barbie, Ken's a-comin'! Tell me how ya like it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

hormone party
Posted by: Blue Heron on Feb 6, 2009 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't see anything in this article reporting on how fluctuating hormone levels throughout the month affect female desire and whom they feel attracted to. That has to be a huge factor. I think it may be less so for men, but who knows? We should be grateful for the 'complications' of organic organisms and stop expecting everything to work like a machine. Modernity and its worship of predictable outcomes makes me nauseous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

costs of arousal (part 1)
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Feb 6, 2009 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What might make the results presented more intelligible and congruent is framing them more closely with ideas about cognitive psychology and evolutionary selective pressures.

We might have it a bit backwards here. Our conscious cognitions (thoughts, steam of consciousness) are symbolic representations of complex inner “mental” states that include core beliefs, attributions, archetypes, learned rules about the world and provide cognitive schema we use to interpret all events and which drive our emotive reactions, “feelings” (including e.g. fear, excitement and arousal), which in turn drive behavior. This model of cognitive theory in psychology underlies cognitive-behavioral therapy, the most validated and efficacious practice theory known.

That is, what may be useful in understanding these results is less that physiological arousal becomes represented in awareness, or cognition, but the reverse - that learned and heritable cognitive schemas drive responses to potentially arousing events. One piece of the research that does not seem consistent is the lack of brain inhibitory activity, as measured, in males not becoming aroused with certain stimuli, although this seems far from definitive. - In straights, brain regions associated with inhibition were not triggered by images of men; in gays, such regions weren't activated by pictures of women. Inhibition, in Bailey's experiment, didn't appear to be an explanation for men's narrowly focused desires." – Assumption: we know enough about brain inhibitory function and its localization to accurately and reliably measure it.

More importantly, the fundamental difference in physiological arousal between males and females is that males (especially ancestral males prior to the advent of clothing) overtly signal their arousal, females do not. No big deal? Think about the consequences of overt arousal (erections) in ancestral males in various social contexts and the social signals to other males and social groups: “Yeaaaaaaah, I’m about to impregnate your reproductive mate”, or “Your virginal female offspring has me ready to inseminate something right now!”, or in a social group, “Those two dogs got me interested in a threesome”, or in a group of males, “I’m about to establish something about status here and it’s not me going to lose status.” The Adam and Eve and fig leaf myth and archetypes may be informative here.

The above types of male signals of arousal in many or most of the selective contexts shaping survival, reproductive success, and our heritable psychology would likely be interpreted as deviance or threat to social order and mating system rules, for the excited (and threatening) male, and likely lead to marginalization, rejection, isolation, aggression, injury, or death. That is, unlike in females, because arousal is overt in males, it elicits social, survival, and reproductive costs, and is highly subject to selective pressures. It’s not so much different now: there are no apparent costs for physiological arousal in females, but imagine the social, legal, employment and other costs for males who had poor differential control of erections depending on social normative context (like when strolling around the pool deck).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

costs of arousal (part 2)
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Feb 6, 2009 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So for males, given that arousal is overt and elicits social responses that may be strong selective pressures, it is not difficult to imagine selection favoring in them a stronger and more direct link between learned, socially constructed and introjected inner templates, or rules, about sexuality, and physiological arousal. Superego is more highly wired to id. The idea that “Men think with their penises”, may be more accurately described as “Penis, interrupted.” Of course women would also be expected to introject all sorts of beliefs about sexuality – what they “think” is OK to be excited by – depending on their sexual identity, how well it is integrated, cultural norms versus their sense of autonomy, etc., but physiological arousal is always safe for them, because it is hidden. Poor men.



Of course this all leaves out behavior, as opposed to physical arousal. In that area it is women who have experienced greater selective pressure on sexuality, because for them fulfilling sexual desire (especially in the particular way a male partner driven by his biology would want to) ancestrally risked death: in dangerous ancestral environments, without establishment of physical and social supports and safety, pregnancy, birthing, and the vulnerability and demands of the mother-infant dyad put her at increased risk of mortality. Possibly why, for the female psyche, sexuality is so tied up with vulnerability, trust, safety, and sense of control.



Ultimately, if cultural introjects could be factored out, (and part of thinking about this might include more discussion of early childhood sexuality and sensuality), it may be that men and women are not so different after all – all needing safety and social acceptance, and all driven to integration, wholeness, or “love”, physically, otherwise, and likely in less differentiated ways than we have been domesticated to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz... Posted by: gar1948

Comments are closed-

Just look at media and entertainment
Posted by: Alenna on Feb 6, 2009 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at media and entertainment if you want to know what turns women on vs what turns men on. Men (generally speaking) like porno movies and magazines which are in-your-face, visual and fast. Women (again generally speaking) like to watch romantic movies and read romance novels - a slower more savory type of "turn-on". Women I think prefer the atmosphere to be right -flowers, food, scent, music etc. and like to wrap their minds around the idea of sex for awhile. Guys on the other hand are more to-the-point, and wouldn't be concerned if they happen to be in a barn, or alley, or out on the street. Look at prostitution on the streets - how many women go to male prostitutes for quick sex? Is there a female version of a quick "blow-job" in a car?

I'm trying to be careful not to generalize too much - I'm sure there are many women who get quickly turned on by pornography, and men who prefer the slow and romantic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

penis does not equate to vagina
Posted by: zparadock on Feb 6, 2009 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their results are misleading because they mistakenly are equating the penis with the vagina. I am quite sure they'd get very different results hooking up their sensor to the women's clitorises. Physiologically, the penis and clitoris are analogous. I know my vaginal lubrication kicks in under all sorts of circumstances, many of which do not involve any sort of sexual thrill on my part. But if my clit is throbbing, that means something!

I don't know why anyone who doesn't even start out knowing the most basic facts of female anatomy is doing this research or why anyone would bother reporting their results.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Pamela from Australia
Posted by: pvalemont@bigpond.com on Feb 6, 2009 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, who says a woman or a man gets turned on only by seeing some naked persons having sex, masturbating or exercising? I reckon the findings would have been the same if they had shown a male or female singer singing a love song, directed specifically at the sex of the person viewing, or an erotic dancer. Artistic expression can be a powerful turn-on, certainly for my own part, much more so than some nameless person/s having sex. Even more so if that sex is a mere act, devoid of real emotion, set up for the specific purpose of a sex study. Sex between prostitutes ( and here I am talking about people who sell their images engaged in a sex act for whatever reason - study or otherwise) of whatever gender is a definite turn off for me, and I think would be for most decent females and males. In fact, you wouldn't even get me to view it in the first place! I consider such acts morally degrading, revolting even. So, to participate in such a study would be morally unacceptable to me. What kind of people were engaged in the study may I ask? That could account for the discrepancy between physical and emotional response so glaring in the women. I think it could be said women generally are far less receptive than men to pornography, depending of course on age and other social factors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Where are the answers?
Posted by: ladyoracle on Feb 6, 2009 5:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darn! I read this article hoping to get an answer as to what arouses me. I think it makes sense at least for me that actual arousal and desire don't always match, because the only things that get me aroused in terms of things to look at are lesbian sex (but not a woman's body if she is alone) and occasionally and I mean only once in a blue moon, a chiseled male body. Yet I identify as heterosexual. Getting my desire involved requires alcohol, music, and atmosphere. And I have to feel sexy as hell. It's exhausting to get me into bed. I wonder why.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So let me get this straight. Author claims "male" bias and invents "female" bias?
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Feb 6, 2009 7:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see the author's point anyway. Besides, it's not like all men are guilty either.

Heck, my wife and I just dress up attractively and then come together and hug, hold hands, and kiss each other. If one of us asks the other to wear tights, the other one has to do so also so sometimes we both go out with tights under our shorts and surprisingly get admired in public. Sometimes, we even go out and play, and tickle each other like kids, and even have fun in the rain together. Neither of us ask a lot from each other. Sorry if I got carried away there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

huh?
Posted by: disfasia on Feb 6, 2009 7:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article reductive, stereotyping of all forms of sexuality, and not in the least enlightening. I don't really see why AlterNet sees fit to post rather boring platitudes and longings online.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Hey folks
Posted by: Marverick47 on Feb 6, 2009 10:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
live how you want to live
love who you want to love
be happy, be kind, get a move on

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey folks Posted by: lightwing1
» RE: Hey folks Posted by: lorrainemc

Comments are closed-

Book suggestion: Mating in Captivity
Posted by: lorrainemc on Feb 10, 2009 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book, by Esther Perel, takes a stab at explaining how & why committed couples can start to lose interest in each other sexually. Basically, the two forces at work in a relationship- the desire for security and love, and the desire for novelty and excitement- work against each other to produce ho-hum sex for even the most loving couples. However, no need to despair! Perel's book is full of suggestions for seeing your partner in a new light (helloooo, he's a MAN, not just the guy you pay bills with). It's a good book, and I think it sheds new light on some of what confuses people about sexual arousal- especially women's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Straight Males
Posted by: Kilantra on Feb 3, 2009 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't for one instance buy the notion that straight men are only aroused by heterosexual or lesbian porn, or that gay men are only aroused by gay porn.

In these studies there was nothing to determine who straight men were aroused by when watching heterosexual porn. Just because they were watching heterosexual porn doesn't mean that it was soley the female's participation or organs that caused the straight men arousal. Believe it or not, there are straight men who only see themselves as straight and are aroused by the idea of being with another straight man, and repulsed by the idea of sex with a gay man.

These researches also underestimate the ability of some men to control their sexual response. It's not simply Pavlovian for many men and women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Straight Males Posted by: maddy
» RE: Straight Males Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» RE: Straight Males Posted by: Livemike

Comments are closed-

What really gets women hot
Posted by: takebayashi on Feb 3, 2009 10:20 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What really gets most women hot is....good genes and social status. That's right, when they see a man they admire, because of his good looks, worldly success/wealth (or his family's), nice clothes, intelligence, smooth-talk, physical strength or skill/prowess, they get hot, because they want to have his babies. And it helps if the woman is fertile at the time, the guy appears to be available, and he makes a pass at her. All the Romeos know this. That's why the rich, aggressive, nattily-dressed, sports car-driving frat boys usually get the girls. If they aren't too intelligent, at least they know how to play the game. And I do mean game. And that's what really matters in human society. I didn't figure this out until I was a 50 year old loser and I asked myself "why"? Only fools believe in love....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: takebayashi
» It's not sad . . . Posted by: Scientz
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: littlepitcher
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: What really gets women hot Posted by: takebayashi
» RE: "not comprehensive" Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Pheromones???
Posted by: pelican beak on Feb 4, 2009 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The study was based on purely visual cues. It may well be that sexual behavior is also significantly based on cues from aromas we scarcely consciously notice. The scientists struck me as eggheads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pheromones??? Posted by: maddy
» RE: Pheromones??? Posted by: Gisele

Comments are closed-

The most moronic paragraph I've ever read is this part:
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 4, 2009 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The body of information (sorry) about men's arousal is disproportionately swollen (sorry, again) because most scientists have been male, and most of the cultural focus has been on how to arouse men.

The cultural focus has been on how to arouse men? Seriously?

Perhaps in the advertising/scientific community, that is the case. But that is relatively minor research, and is definitely minor spending, compared to the overall research being done.

Almost all of the disposable income by single heterosexual men between the ages 18-25, is spent directly on researching what arouses women.....

Now admittedly, there haven't been the great successes in this research, partially because the subject is so difficult, and partially because the best researchers usually quit the field and stick with one test subject..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Unscientific
Posted by: Mewabe on Feb 4, 2009 11:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with this so called research is that there is no effort to distinguish between behaviors that stem from conditioning and those that are rooted in innate psychological or sexual characteristics.
That even some "feminists" want a man to dominate or take charge, or initiate, is not necessarily physiological but could be due to centuries of the patriarchal subjugation of women.
Even in the animal kingdom, some species produce aggressive and dominant females.
This research seems to be based on a reluctance to upset mainstream perceptions.
Might as well compile a bunch of cliches and call it a day, this is ridiculously superficial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unscientific Posted by: PirateJesus
» RE: Unscientific Posted by: RR#1
» RE: Bonobos, Posted by: oregoncharles
» Thank you! Posted by: SalB

Comments are closed-

Confusing
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 6, 2009 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The second-to-last paragraph of the article is the critical one. If you get sex down to a science, the human race would die off due to lack of interest in it. It wouldn't be the same without all of the confusion, frustration, heartache and expense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I really don't think so. Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

No wonder we're confused.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Feb 6, 2009 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was my thought when I finished the original article (which is too long for Alternet, but much clearer about the research than this review.)

But "worrying" is this writer's own gloss. The scientists (all women - did she mention that?) may be worried by apparently contradictory results, but not in the broader sense implied here. Evidently, the system works well enough that there are too damn many of us. SOMEBODY's getting it on.

Neither article mentions a fundamental reason for the confusion: human sexuality is a very new thing, and the change is almost entirely in women. Human evolution essentially transferred male-pattern, continuous sexuality to women. The arrangement is shared only with bonobos, our nearest cousins. Evidently, it works a little differently in its new setting; the biggest difference appears to be women's remarkable polymorphism, and the disjunct between physical and mental arousal. Note that both are partly artifacts of the research setup. In real social situations, the mind is mostly in control, so its primacy buries the potential distinction. And this research doesn't address at all what women want IN MEN - always men's chief concern, and highly cultural.

One reason the researchers are confused may be that women's sexuality is so new that it's still evolving, hence quite unstable and variable. The evolutionist Steven Jay Gould proposed this idea years ago; he greatly underestimated cultural impacts in an antisexual and antifemale culture, but his point remains valid.

In other words, women themselves are still finding out what they want. Which I guess is the human condition.

Read the original article; it's very illuminating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: P.S.: the plethysmograph... Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Eliminating Other Categories
Posted by: Gravitas on Feb 6, 2009 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A chiseled man, well toned woman" It should be noted that some people have preferences for other than what the culture dictates. Chiseled men do not do it for me. If I got to know someone who had other qualities I admire I might come to love one. However, simply looking at a pic of someone who is ripped does not arouse anything in me as my strictly physical preference is for ample men. It is also estimated that 1 in 10 men prefer round to thin women. There is a small number of men who can't even get an erection with a thin woman. So to add to the confusion...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

While looking through the link to cheney, er, hitler~~
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Feb 6, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found out why police are called cops.

"coprophile"

You can look it up.
It fits them perfectly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Women, women, women, women
Posted by: cindyn on Feb 6, 2009 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
everything is always about women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sexual Dichotomy
Posted by: marizara on Feb 6, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay attention here, guys, and learn something important. -- Men are driven sexually first by visual cues, and then mental/hormonal responses. -- Women, on the other hand, are driven first by mental/hormonal cues, then by tactile cues. -- While a man has clearly defined erogenous zones, women's are far more diffuse. -- Actually, a woman's entire body and being is one gigantic erogenous zone. -- That is why women can vary so much in what turns them on. -- It's also what drives men crazy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sexual Dichotomy Posted by: Gisele
» RE: Sexual Dichotomy Posted by: pelican beak

Comments are closed-

A physical difference.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Feb 6, 2009 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Possibly the most striking result of Chivers' research is that women were so often aroused without knowing, or maybe admitting, it. This wasn't true of men. There may be a simple reason for the difference:

An erection is pretty hard to overlook. It's, well, prominent, and even uncomfortable if your pants are snug. Women's arousal is more subtle. There has to be a physical sensation involved, but that can be ignored, especially if it conflicts with conscious inclinations - or our cultural prejudices against female sexuality.

And of course, men have little fear of admitting they're turned on. In any case, they have little choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not to be too graphic here... Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Let's quit studying sex and just have sex!
Posted by: ThinkLife on Feb 6, 2009 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it sad and frustrating that the only "legitimate" way to talk about sex in the mainstream media--how it works, how to get it, that you want it, or what you like about it--is in response to some dry-as-toast scientific report???

All the while, we're barraged by media images of hunky men swilling beer and skimpily clad women touting the benefits of Viagra and other eros-inducing pills--or selling things that have nothing to do with sex whatsoever! While politicians and corporate heads and everyone else seek out hookers, call girls and online porn sites!

While "page three lovelies" pop their boobies at you in the British press. (I have to admit, I looked up a picture of Samara Ginsberg, the author of a recent piece on AlterNet, "Women Have Boobs--Get Over It." Well, I can't get over it. I love boobs! And all the rest of women's bodies, too!)

Hell, enough science and analysis. The Puritans bore me. So do scientists--unless they look like Gisele Bundchen. (I'm guessing 95% of male readers are with me on this--not necessarily on my choice of hottie, though.)

So who wants to have sex? With me! Yes, right now, by email, sending pictures, a lust-drenched phone call or meeting me for a "liquid lunch"--I don't care how!

LET'S JUST DO IT!

Please be female, attractive, slim-to-average, between 18-50, petite, horny, smart, dumb or anything in-between. (Uh, actually you had me at 'female.')

I'm 40ish, tall, handsome, smart and funny. And horny. Just repeating so everything's clear: Pretty darn horny.

And yes, I'm serious about the offer, as well as about making a point!

It's trite, I know--but true--that I like sunsets, movies, romantic dinners, cuddling...and sweaty slurpy gooey gummy SEX--before, during and after all of that...mmmmm.

Bend over Barbie, Ken's a-comin'! Tell me how ya like it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

hormone party
Posted by: Blue Heron on Feb 6, 2009 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't see anything in this article reporting on how fluctuating hormone levels throughout the month affect female desire and whom they feel attracted to. That has to be a huge factor. I think it may be less so for men, but who knows? We should be grateful for the 'complications' of organic organisms and stop expecting everything to work like a machine. Modernity and its worship of predictable outcomes makes me nauseous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

costs of arousal (part 1)
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Feb 6, 2009 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What might make the results presented more intelligible and congruent is framing them more closely with ideas about cognitive psychology and evolutionary selective pressures.

We might have it a bit backwards here. Our conscious cognitions (thoughts, steam of consciousness) are symbolic representations of complex inner “mental” states that include core beliefs, attributions, archetypes, learned rules about the world and provide cognitive schema we use to interpret all events and which drive our emotive reactions, “feelings” (including e.g. fear, excitement and arousal), which in turn drive behavior. This model of cognitive theory in psychology underlies cognitive-behavioral therapy, the most validated and efficacious practice theory known.

That is, what may be useful in understanding these results is less that physiological arousal becomes represented in awareness, or cognition, but the reverse - that learned and heritable cognitive schemas drive responses to potentially arousing events. One piece of the research that does not seem consistent is the lack of brain inhibitory activity, as measured, in males not becoming aroused with certain stimuli, although this seems far from definitive. - In straights, brain regions associated with inhibition were not triggered by images of men; in gays, such regions weren't activated by pictures of women. Inhibition, in Bailey's experiment, didn't appear to be an explanation for men's narrowly focused desires." – Assumption: we know enough about brain inhibitory function and its localization to accurately and reliably measure it.

More importantly, the fundamental difference in physiological arousal between males and females is that males (especially ancestral males prior to the advent of clothing) overtly signal their arousal, females do not. No big deal? Think about the consequences of overt arousal (erections) in ancestral males in various social contexts and the social signals to other males and social groups: “Yeaaaaaaah, I’m about to impregnate your reproductive mate”, or “Your virginal female offspring has me ready to inseminate something right now!”, or in a social group, “Those two dogs got me interested in a threesome”, or in a group of males, “I’m about to establish something about status here and it’s not me going to lose status.” The Adam and Eve and fig leaf myth and archetypes may be informative here.

The above types of male signals of arousal in many or most of the selective contexts shaping survival, reproductive success, and our heritable psychology would likely be interpreted as deviance or threat to social order and mating system rules, for the excited (and threatening) male, and likely lead to marginalization, rejection, isolation, aggression, injury, or death. That is, unlike in females, because arousal is overt in males, it elicits social, survival, and reproductive costs, and is highly subject to selective pressures. It’s not so much different now: there are no apparent costs for physiological arousal in females, but imagine the social, legal, employment and other costs for males who had poor differential control of erections depending on social normative context (like when strolling around the pool deck).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

costs of arousal (part 2)
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Feb 6, 2009 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So for males, given that arousal is overt and elicits social responses that may be strong selective pressures, it is not difficult to imagine selection favoring in them a stronger and more direct link between learned, socially constructed and introjected inner templates, or rules, about sexuality, and physiological arousal. Superego is more highly wired to id. The idea that “Men think with their penises”, may be more accurately described as “Penis, interrupted.” Of course women would also be expected to introject all sorts of beliefs about sexuality – what they “think” is OK to be excited by – depending on their sexual identity, how well it is integrated, cultural norms versus their sense of autonomy, etc., but physiological arousal is always safe for them, because it is hidden. Poor men.



Of course this all leaves out behavior, as opposed to physical arousal. In that area it is women who have experienced greater selective pressure on sexuality, because for them fulfilling sexual desire (especially in the particular way a male partner driven by his biology would want to) ancestrally risked death: in dangerous ancestral environments, without establishment of physical and social supports and safety, pregnancy, birthing, and the vulnerability and demands of the mother-infant dyad put her at increased risk of mortality. Possibly why, for the female psyche, sexuality is so tied up with vulnerability, trust, safety, and sense of control.



Ultimately, if cultural introjects could be factored out, (and part of thinking about this might include more discussion of early childhood sexuality and sensuality), it may be that men and women are not so different after all – all needing safety and social acceptance, and all driven to integration, wholeness, or “love”, physically, otherwise, and likely in less differentiated ways than we have been domesticated to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz... Posted by: gar1948

Comments are closed-

Just look at media and entertainment
Posted by: Alenna on Feb 6, 2009 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at media and entertainment if you want to know what turns women on vs what turns men on. Men (generally speaking) like porno movies and magazines which are in-your-face, visual and fast. Women (again generally speaking) like to watch romantic movies and read romance novels - a slower more savory type of "turn-on". Women I think prefer the atmosphere to be right -flowers, food, scent, music etc. and like to wrap their minds around the idea of sex for awhile. Guys on the other hand are more to-the-point, and wouldn't be concerned if they happen to be in a barn, or alley, or out on the street. Look at prostitution on the streets - how many women go to male prostitutes for quick sex? Is there a female version of a quick "blow-job" in a car?

I'm trying to be careful not to generalize too much - I'm sure there are many women who get quickly turned on by pornography, and men who prefer the slow and romantic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

penis does not equate to vagina
Posted by: zparadock on Feb 6, 2009 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their results are misleading because they mistakenly are equating the penis with the vagina. I am quite sure they'd get very different results hooking up their sensor to the women's clitorises. Physiologically, the penis and clitoris are analogous. I know my vaginal lubrication kicks in under all sorts of circumstances, many of which do not involve any sort of sexual thrill on my part. But if my clit is throbbing, that means something!

I don't know why anyone who doesn't even start out knowing the most basic facts of female anatomy is doing this research or why anyone would bother reporting their results.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Pamela from Australia
Posted by: pvalemont@bigpond.com on Feb 6, 2009 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, who says a woman or a man gets turned on only by seeing some naked persons having sex, masturbating or exercising? I reckon the findings would have been the same if they had shown a male or female singer singing a love song, directed specifically at the sex of the person viewing, or an erotic dancer. Artistic expression can be a powerful turn-on, certainly for my own part, much more so than some nameless person/s having sex. Even more so if that sex is a mere act, devoid of real emotion, set up for the specific purpose of a sex study. Sex between prostitutes ( and here I am talking about people who sell their images engaged in a sex act for whatever reason - study or otherwise) of whatever gender is a definite turn off for me, and I think would be for most decent females and males. In fact, you wouldn't even get me to view it in the first place! I consider such acts morally degrading, revolting even. So, to participate in such a study would be morally unacceptable to me. What kind of people were engaged in the study may I ask? That could account for the discrepancy between physical and emotional response so glaring in the women. I think it could be said women generally are far less receptive than men to pornography, depending of course on age and other social factors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Where are the answers?
Posted by: ladyoracle on Feb 6, 2009 5:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darn! I read this article hoping to get an answer as to what arouses me. I think it makes sense at least for me that actual arousal and desire don't always match, because the only things that get me aroused in terms of things to look at are lesbian sex (but not a woman's body if she is alone) and occasionally and I mean only once in a blue moon, a chiseled male body. Yet I identify as heterosexual. Getting my desire involved requires alcohol, music, and atmosphere. And I have to feel sexy as hell. It's exhausting to get me into bed. I wonder why.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So let me get this straight. Author claims "male" bias and invents "female" bias?
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Feb 6, 2009 7:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see the author's point anyway. Besides, it's not like all men are guilty either.

Heck, my wife and I just dress up attractively and then come together and hug, hold hands, and kiss each other. If one of us asks the other to wear tights, the other one has to do so also so sometimes we both go out with tights under our shorts and surprisingly get admired in public. Sometimes, we even go out and play, and tickle each other like kids, and even have fun in the rain together. Neither of us ask a lot from each other. Sorry if I got carried away there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

huh?
Posted by: disfasia on Feb 6, 2009 7:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article reductive, stereotyping of all forms of sexuality, and not in the least enlightening. I don't really see why AlterNet sees fit to post rather boring platitudes and longings online.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Hey folks
Posted by: Marverick47 on Feb 6, 2009 10:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
live how you want to live
love who you want to love
be happy, be kind, get a move on

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey folks Posted by: lightwing1
» RE: Hey folks Posted by: lorrainemc

Comments are closed-

Book suggestion: Mating in Captivity
Posted by: lorrainemc on Feb 10, 2009 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book, by Esther Perel, takes a stab at explaining how & why committed couples can start to lose interest in each other sexually. Basically, the two forces at work in a relationship- the desire for security and love, and the desire for novelty and excitement- work against each other to produce ho-hum sex for even the most loving couples. However, no need to despair! Perel's book is full of suggestions for seeing your partner in a new light (helloooo, he's a MAN, not just the guy you pay bills with). It's a good book, and I think it sheds new light on some of what confuses people about sexual arousal- especially women's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS