(I'm not sure where this study was done, but I believe it was at Harvard Medical School. I could be wrong, but I know it was at an Ivy League Med school somewhere in the northeast.)
Recently, a study was done where they hooked up thousands of different types of people up to sensors and studied brain activity. I believe it was a couple thousand woman and a couple thousand men from all different ages, races, religions, nationalities, cultures, income levels, etc. Then the volunteers were showed pornography.
Well we all know almost all guys love porn, and girls generally don't like that stuff, right?
But the results were astonishing.
They found that women's brains responded more positively to porn and that they were more sexually aroused than the men were.
It also showed that women were aroused by ALL types of pornography. Straight, girl on girl, guy on guy, sex with animals, transvestites, etc.
Yet the guys were only turned on by straight or girl on girl porn. The other types of porn didn't really make a difference.
And, even though the men got aroused, the men didn't get as aroused as the women got.
WOW!!! So that's totally different than what society thinks...huh?
Oh yeah, and they are wondering if that's a reason many gay women tend to be bisexual and gay men tend to be only gay.
Hello!
I'm rather suspect of the interpretation this sort of "research", but I haven't seen this study yet.
First of all, measuring the brain to establish sexual response is highly counter-productive. The brain responds to many stimuli in very different ways and even differently in different people. Measuring activity doesn't show "excitement" or "titillation" or anything of the sort.
The traditional way to measure sexual response isn't through brain waves at all as they are extremely difficult to decipher - everyone's brain is laid out in different ways! The more direct, specific and more reliable way to measure sexual response is by measuring blood flow to the genitals. It's a very specific indicator of sexual excitement. That tells me that this study wasn't measuring sexual response at all; or if it was, it was highly flawed.
Second, what's the point and who is making the determination of the meaning of the results? Let me give you an example:
A quite-famous, highly-controlled study was done using the brain to determine what areas were directly involved in speech: particularly, which areas were used for vocalization and which were used for interpretation.
The researchers found something rather interesting - that women use about twice the brain area for interpretation that men use.
The media quickly jumped on this with headlines such as "Women are twice as good at interpreting speech as men!" Seems fair doesn't it? It sure seems to fit a desired belief - which sells newspapers!
The researchers came out after this media storm to say, "Actually, it probably doesn't mean that at all - what it seems to indicate is that men only NEED TO USE 1/2 the area that women need to do the same thing."
That's a pretty different result, don't you think? You see, the lay interpretation of the results were motivated by a particular agenda - not science. That's why when I hear about these sorts of studies to include interpretations that I have to suspect the motivation behind them and the methods used to "discover" them.
What's the assumption here? That women are more sexual than men? Why is that important? The message itself is totally irrelevant if that's the case! What seems to be going on is that an agenda has been formed (just as was yours in writing this to me) to imply something that is extremely popular today, but frankly, totally without merit: that women are exactly like men; or even more masculine than men, and that our understanding of ourselves is wrong. This is a highly liberal social agenda that has permeated the "woman's world" that is western society today.
Here's what I believe about sexuality between men and women: they are equal from the standpoint that they affect us individually, but carry VERY different motivations. Women aren't more "sexual" than men, and men aren't more "emotional" than women. We both have different traits that work for and benefit us to thrive as a species.
Instead of trying to show study after study that supposedly "proves" that women are "...just like men..." or "...more sexual than men..." or "...better than men..." (or whatever the agenda) we should not only accept the fact that we're very, very different, but embrace and even exploit those differences to everyone's benefit.
Best regards...
About the Author
Author of Being a Man in a Woman's World, Dr. Dennis Neder is dedicated to advancing the arts and sciences of relationships. His mantra: start having the relationships you deserve! New articles are posted every Wednesday!
Do you have a love, dating, relationship, sex or man/woman question? Dr. Dennis Neder answers all email, so send him an email for answers. For more information about his books, "Being a Man in a Woman's World" (volumes I & II), and other products, please visit BeingAMan.com.
Subscribe & Share:
Link to this Page
To link to this page, copy the following code to your site:
Post a Comment
Post a comment about this article or share your own ideas.
Comments to date: 1. This is page 1 of 1.
Robin L.A.
Posted at 11:24pm on Sunday, November 1st, 2009
i think women are just as visual as men. the only reason i don't like a lot of porn is that it is too phony. the women often aren't really getting off, and that is obvious to other women at least. i think women in our society tend to be more empathetic (for whatever reason), so when they see women pretending to get off, it's not a turn on.
but even if there were more good porn available, i think that women would just rather put that energy into their relationships and the great real-world sex that is the reward of that work.
i am also skeptical about this study, as i am about all studies that make statements about how humans "naturally" are. this kind of thinking is very highly controverted in academia.
i very much agree with your last statement about not focusing on what is supposedly "proven" by science. this is why i don't really buy the idea that men are "hard wired" to be polygamous, and women are "hard-wired" to be monogamous (an idea that you allude to often). that's like saying it's natural for women to get the short end of the stick in relationships. talk about a dangerously one-sided agenda!
i think, if anything, we are "hard wired" to be quite variable in many respects according to our culture, with certain tendencies of course. focusing too much on the "nature" or "hard-wiring" of people limits the possibilities of what we CAN be.
Follow Us
Weekly Tips & Ideas
Hot Romance
500 Lovemaking Tips Get more passion & intimacy with great sex from Oprah romance expert! Tips will drive your man or woman wild.
100 Bedroom Games Are you lacking passion and intimacy? Get 100 fun and creative sex games, plus a FREE sexy coupon book.
Flirting
