Personality Cafe banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,865 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Posted on November 29, 2010
Meredith Chivers, a highly regarded psychologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, showed men and women, both straight and gay, short film clips of heterosexual sex, gay and lesbian sex, a man masturbating, a woman masturbating, a nude well-toned man walking, a fit woman doing nude calisthenics, and bonobos (an ape species) having sex.

Chivers then asked the men and women to rate how aroused they felt. But she also used probes to gauge penile swelling and vaginal blood flow.

Men’s responses were as expected.

But women’s genitals and minds seemed to belong to entirely different people. For instance, hetero women’s bodies were more aroused by the exercising woman than by the strolling man – though they claimed otherwise.

In other research, she asked men and women to wear goggles that track eye movement, and had them look at pictures of heterosexual couples in foreplay. The men gazed mostly at the women – their faces and bodies. But the women spent equal time looking at both sexes, with their eyes focused on the men’s faces and the women’s bodies.

In these two pieces of research we find hetero women more aroused by nude pictures of women than men, and spending more time looking at nude women’s bodies than men’s.

Odd huh?

Chivers isn’t entirely sure what to make of it all. Since women’s blood flow rose in every sexual situation they viewed, including the bonobos – and because lubrication (and blood flow) also increase among rape victims when sex is unwanted – she speculates that women’s bodies may lubricate whenever a sexual signal arises in order to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during penetration. With this need, women’s bodies may simply be much more sensitive to any sexual signal than men’s, whether or not they feel sexually aroused.

Okay, but why were women more aroused by looking at the nude woman than the nude man? “Possibly,” she said, “the exposure and tilt of the woman’s vulva during her calisthenics was proc*essed as a sexual signal while the man’s unerect penis registered in the opposite way.”

The notion that the women were less turned on because they couldn’t see an erection seems odd given that Playgirl, until recently, has had a long history of hiding the penis. Many women are ambivalent, at best, about the penis as a visual turn-on.

Perhaps Chivers is referring to some primal response that women aren’t consciously aware of, responding to a sexual stimulus requiring need for lubrication. Yet a nude exercising woman is no more likely to penetrate than a flaccid man.

Also, straight women spent more time looking at the bodies of nude women than nude men during sexual foreplay. Why did women’s bodies draw greater interest?

Many will seek out biological explanations, but as a sociologist, I think culture may explain the oddity.

Society teaches us how to see the world: How to think about it, feel about it, and react to it.

The male body is pretty much ignored in our culture. Billboards aren’t splashed with sexy men. No men in Speedos. Nothing much but an occasional underwear ad.

Women’s bodies are focused upon, with breasts selectively hidden and revealed, creating a captivation, leaving us wondering about that which is hidden. The camera gazes, zeroes in on women’s bodies. We talk about women’s breasts as alluring. So they become a sexual signal to both men and women. We don’t treat any part of the male body in the same way.

Men learn the breast fetish, too. In cultures that don’t selectively hide and reveal the breast, they are no big deal. So tribal men, who see them all the time, aren’t especially interested. European men’s attraction waned when topless women suddenly appeared all over local beaches and billboards. And men can become numbed to titillation with overexposure to porn.

Hetero women likely experience all this a bit differently from men. For one thing, the fetish isn’t attached to their natural sexual interest, which may weaken the allure. Homophobia may also lead to repression. And women might see other women’s breasts as competition, distracting from the erotic. All of this probably creates a different experience from men’s. But research suggests that women do experience the fetish, none-the-less.

I’m hetero, but ask me which image I find more erotic, a nude female or a nude male, and I’ll choose the girl. My hetero female students say the same thing. I used to think that was odd, until I realized that the breast fetish is learned, and not based in biology.

Women Learn the Breast Fetish, Too | BroadBlogs

"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses." - plato
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
204 Posts
I don't know if I believe this? Have you seen Magic Mike.:laughing: I would rather look at those men than some boobies. Maybe women and men alike who were breastfed or breastfed their children are less likely to have the breast fetish.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,865 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I don't know if I believe this? Have you seen Magic Mike.:laughing: I would rather look at those men than some boobies. Maybe women and men alike who were breastfed or breastfed their children are less likely to have the breast fetish.
I certainly don't think that all women are susceptible to this. It resonated with me however because I was noticing a lot of females who weren't bi, but had tendencies that really confused them. They weren't attracted to women in such a way that they would date them -- but they felt only a superficial sexual attraction.. and when it came down to it, they weren't interested even in the follow-through. I held onto these observations for a long time without really voicing them, and then I heard the same observation from a frustrated lesbian who dealt with these women a lot. Her explanation for their fixation on female form was a sort of covetous jealousy. I don't know if thats true, but we both realized that they weren't actually bi or anything.

Its also true that not even all men fall prey to media's ideal pushing.. so naturally not all women will either -- but I have certainly seen it in many of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
They weren't attracted to women in such a way that they would date them -- but they felt only a superficial sexual attraction.. and when it came down to it, they weren't interested even in the follow-through.
This. I've actually met a lot of women like this. I've never been into the superficiality of modern culture, but those that have been more exposed to it (especially if they let themselves be) seem more likely to feel such 'superficial' attractions. And, of course, since women are the most sexually exploited in the media (sorry guys, I'm just saying how it really is), it makes sense that even the ladies heavily exposed to it would think that it's 'sexy'. So in my experience, they go one of two ways: 1) try to become like those 'sexy beasts' in television/film/modern literature, or 2) gain an attraction of it. I still haven't met one that has honestly gone the third way, which is to either not be affected by it or gain a negative view of it.

I must admit, I have a very negative view of modern culture. What few good things I've seen it done is enormously surpassed by the number of negatives it has caused. And people can argue 'biology' all they want, but they need to stop ignoring the fact of social conditioning. It causes a lot more issues than they realize - more bad than good in the society I've known for over twenty years.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,865 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
This. I've actually met a lot of women like this. I've never been into the superficiality of modern culture, but those that have been more exposed to it (especially if they let themselves be) seem more likely to feel such 'superficial' attractions. And, of course, since women are the most sexually exploited in the media (sorry guys, I'm just saying how it really is), it makes sense that even the ladies heavily exposed to it would think that it's 'sexy'. So in my experience, they go one of two ways: 1) try to become like those 'sexy beasts' in television/film/modern literature, or 2) gain an attraction of it. I still haven't met one that has honestly gone the third way, which is to either not be affected by it or gain a negative view of it.

I must admit, I have a very negative view of modern culture. What few good things I've seen it done is enormously surpassed by the number of negatives it has caused. And people can argue 'biology' all they want, but they need to stop ignoring the fact of social conditioning. It causes a lot more issues than they realize - more bad than good in the society I've known for over twenty years.
Its always refreshing to me when someone else has made these observations. I have been studying people intently since I was a child, and at some point I really began to focus on things like this -- while looking in from the outside. It probably wouldn't surprise you how many people just shut down these ideas I have, and call them crazy without even considering them.

I have made a point a few times on the forum that evolutionary biology assumes that everything currently present in human beings -must- have some inherent biological root. It ignores socialization -especially- if they can find a way to compare the behaviour to any behaviour they can find in an animal. Guy Debord once called something similar 'the glorification of what exists;' 'if it exists, its natural, and its correct -- merely because it exists,' like theres some innate drive in humanity as a whole, and things could have only played out the way they did as a result of it. No.

I personally wonder, is humanity as a whole healthy.. happy.. or perhaps its just immature and still making mistakes, and hopefully learning how to become happy. I like to speculate about alternatives to things that seem to create the loneliness that humans experience in particular. /ramble
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
Its always refreshing to me when someone else has made these observations. I have been studying people intently since I was a child, and at some point I really began to focus on things like this -- while looking in from the outside. It probably wouldn't surprise you how many people just shut down these ideas I have, and call them crazy without even considering them.

I have made a point a few times on the forum that evolutionary biology assumes that everything currently present in human beings -must- have some inherent biological root. It ignores socialization -especially- if they can find a way to compare the behaviour to any behaviour they can find in an animal. Guy Debord once called something similar 'the glorification of what exists;' 'if it exists, its natural, and its correct -- merely because it exists, like theres some inane drive in humanity as a whole, and things could have only played out the way they did as a result of it.' No.

I personally wonder, is humanity as a whole healthy.. happy.. or perhaps its just immature and still making mistakes, and hopefully learning how to become happy. I like to speculate about alternatives to things that seem to create the loneliness that humans experience in particular. /ramble
What's ironic is how often those same people that shut down your ideas (as they have mine) are the same ones that say it's important to discuss things with an open mind (not an accepting one; Aristotle made that one clear). Dogbert (from the satirical Dilbert cartoon/comic) ironically said: "Remember, the first rule of brainstorming is to openly mock the ideas/opinions of others."

People need to get a balanced education. I find a lot to gain from Psychology, Sociology, and Philosophy. Now if only more people would aim to take something useful out of all those subjects and apply them to their own observations. In this case, there's a lot more evidence pointing toward social conditioning; the only problem is that many people don't accept sociology as a legitimate discipline because they believe sociologists' methods of gathering information are too assuming (rather that concrete). Look at what science has become - a hypocritical morass of people no different from society.

I certainly hope human beings figure it out, because with things the way they are now, there's too much poverty, too much war, and far too many diseases. Our species has a ridiculous amount of problems, and I tend to believe in a mix of external and internal reasons - most of them boiling down to the human itself, be it biological or sociological. It's funny that we are more naturally attuned to being like animals, yet we have the capability to do more. Why can't we aim for such a goal? If we could find ways to deal with our animal-like tendencies, we could avoid a lot of issues. I'm sure there will be other issues to deal with afterward, but I suspect that's just how the world works. I just want to get many of the issues our species has now out of the way with first.

Too bad that's far too lofty a goal to succeed in unless reincarnation exists. Even then, I better damn well reincarnate with this knowledge and drive at least innately built into me. All I can do is offer alternatives, and that's all I will do. It's up to people to decide whether or not it's worth giving a try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
If I remember correctly, tests have shown that men are often right-brain dominant, which is analytical, mathematical and rational, whereas women often score highly on left-brain dominance, which is more abstract, artistic and emotional. If this is true, perhaps the womens own imagination kicked in; that they saw themselves in the heterosexual situation rather than another woman. This could explain why they were looking at the mans face (where our emotions and visual identity is displayed), and the females body (which, to some extent, is more generic).

That still doesn't explain the higher arousal levels when looking at the female doing calisthenics as opposed to the walking man. On the other hand, calisthenics may consist of more "sensual" movements, than mere walking. Why both weren't doing the same calisthenics is beyond me. Selective, perhaps?

I doubt breast fetish has anything to do with post-natal feeding patterns. Personalities aren't entirely built through environmental experience.

Ultimately, I'm just speculating. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,108 Posts
If I remember correctly, tests have shown that men are often right-brain dominant, which is analytical, mathematical and rational, whereas women often score highly on left-brain dominance, which is more abstract, artistic and emotional. If this is true, perhaps the womens own imagination kicked in; that they saw themselves in the heterosexual situation rather than another woman. This could explain why they were looking at the mans face (where our emotions and visual identity is displayed), and the females body (which, to some extent, is more generic).

That still doesn't explain the higher arousal levels when looking at the female doing calisthenics as opposed to the walking man. On the other hand, calisthenics may consist of more "sensual" movements, than mere walking. Why both weren't doing the same calisthenics is beyond me. Selective, perhaps?

I doubt breast fetish has anything to do with post-natal feeding patterns. Personalities aren't entirely built through environmental experience.

Ultimately, I'm just speculating. What do you think?
Fascinating idea. I know that sometimes in the past, if I was having trouble achieving orgasm during sex, I could fix it by putting myself in the man's shoes. I used to be ashamed of this and saw it as narcissistic but I think perhaps it is due to finding women's bodies beautiful and finding the act of penetration and domination alluring (because I cannot do it myself, partly).

Btw I think the right hemisphere is more the artistic realm and the left is more mathematical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Thanks for sharing so valuable findings

Why did women’s bodies draw greater interest?
Could be a cultural thing. Per example it seems women care more about other women opinion regarding how they look than what we guys have to say about it. (Be it clothing or body shape).


I’m hetero, but ask me which image I find more erotic, a nude female or a nude male, and I’ll choose the girl. My hetero female students say the same thing. I used to think that was odd, until I realized that the breast fetish is learned, and not based in biology.
Thanks for sharing. I know many women wouldn't say this.

Don't trust me on this because I'm a guy, but I honestly think that the woman body is beautiful, not only sexually. It seems logical to me that we all could be attracted to shape, colour, etc. It has style, grace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
I'm left brained, this makes no sense, at least the first paragraph. I think what you mean, I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I've been studying my brain and the brain for about 2, 1/2 years now, women are right brain and are the creative feeling and emotional types, because that's where these things are processed, and men are going to be cool and distant, because we're left brained. We analyze and are great at math. Hence the stereotypes of women who cry a lot and men who seem too cold. Now I would say both of us use both regions of the brain. I know I do. But I think that's what you meant. I'm saying this because the left brain is the masculine brain and the right brain the feminine brain, and I've spent two years trying to get my right brain up to par. Also, math doesn't come easily to me, but art does, and I feel more comfortable analyzing things, Being logical. I need my coffee.


If I remember correctly, tests have shown that men are often right-brain dominant, which is analytical, mathematical and rational, whereas women often score highly on left-brain dominance, which is more abstract, artistic and emotional. If this is true, perhaps the womens own imagination kicked in; that they saw themselves in the heterosexual situation rather than another woman. This could explain why they were looking at the mans face (where our emotions and visual identity is displayed), and the females body (which, to some extent, is more generic).

That still doesn't explain the higher arousal levels when looking at the female doing calisthenics as opposed to the walking man. On the other hand, calisthenics may consist of more "sensual" movements, than mere walking. Why both weren't doing the same calisthenics is beyond me. Selective, perhaps?

I doubt breast fetish has anything to do with post-natal feeding patterns. Personalities aren't entirely built through environmental experience.

Ultimately, I'm just speculating. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,550 Posts
could be possible that the women were putting themselves into the place of the woman in the videos rather than being attracted to her specifically. "Oh look at how happy that woman is, i wish i could get a man to make me like that" etc.

and theyd have to pay me alot to let them place probes in that area
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top