The Science of Lust

[_sock puppet]

You misunderstood what I was saying. I never said that sex scenes do nothing for women. All I said was that women do tend to respond to the element of imagination and written fantasy, and that because of this, written erotica is a preferred medium for many women.

I agree with this. Even beyond this, women really do become sexually aroused from a slightly different variation of stimuli than men. I do believe most men are far more visual than most women. Neither is right or wrong, just different.

There are differences that go beyond nurture, for certain. We have some biological differences that we can't just pretend don't exist.

Sock said:

Males understand their own bodies and physiology better than women, that is, men are more in touch with their feelings (albeit sexual) than women.

Men are in less denial than women about what arouses them and when aroused, that is, men are more honest with themselves and others about what is going on with their bodies.

I understand it is not PC to extol any virtue that a male might possess over female counterparts, but there it is. Ladies, your gender has something to work on vis-à-vis male counterparts.

I think there are several aspects to this. It seems to me that men understand what arouses them easier because it is so very visual. Perhaps it is easier to connect the dots.
Another problem is that women in lots of ways are taught that they are the gatekeeper. They are taught to protect their virtue from the male. "Boys only want one thing" and all that. Clearly this doesn't effect all females, but it does effect some. I think this can result in supressing ones sexuality and make it hard to get aroused, let alone know what is arousing.
Sex education really only explains the mechanics of baby making and how to avoid STD's. It really does a piss poor job of explaining sexuality and relations. Since most parents were never taught they don't know and can't pass information along to their own children.

I will say that I don't believe a lot of sexless women even know why they don't want to have sex with their partner and their partner is just as clueless. So, yes, I think that there could be better education for all the sexes on male and female sexuality.

Sex is frustrating enough for males, but it has got to be downright confounding to females that from the same stimuli their bodies are aroused and their minds turned off. I agree sex ed is inadequate, and I think it is good that young females are not being conditioned to consider what stimulates their bodies to be a mental turn off, at least to the degree that it has been in the past.

[_just me]

Sex is frustrating enough for males, but it has got to be downright confounding to females that from the same stimuli their bodies are aroused and their minds turned off. I agree sex ed is inadequate, and I think it is good that young females are not being conditioned to consider what stimulates their bodies to be a mental turn off, at least to the degree that it has been in the past.

Compounding the problem would be (some) females not masturbating to discover how to "ring the bell." Something like 70% of females do not orgasm from sexual intercourse alone. So, if a female is aroused but then constantly frustrated by a lack of bell ringing it can turn her off to sex further. She has to gain the confidence to not only learn her body (which will change throughout her life) but also to communicate what works for her to her partner.
I also wanted to point out that an absurdly high number of women are sexually abused/assulted and that can have an impact on their sexuality and future sexual experiences.

There are tons of misconceptions and unrealistic expectations for sex. I'm not sure that pornography or erotica exactly helps the matter, To be honest. They both can help add to the pressure and unrealistic expectations for all sexes. They can also be used as aids, so there ya go. Education, education, education!

I do think in some ways it is easier for the newer generation of women. There certainly isn't as much of a stigma to having multiple partners and pre-marital sex as there has been in previous decades.

Ugh, so as far as the body and mind being in conflict. Yes, they can be. And that is typically not a good outcome. Remember, even people who are being sexually abused can become physically aroused. Our mind is our largest sex organ, or so I've heard. The best sexual experiences are going to be when the mind and body are on the same page. Just because the body is aroused doesn't mean the whole experience is positive or one that the person will want to repeat.

[_sock puppet]

Sex is frustrating enough for males, but it has got to be downright confounding to females that from the same stimuli their bodies are aroused and their minds turned off. I agree sex ed is inadequate, and I think it is good that young females are not being conditioned to consider what stimulates their bodies to be a mental turn off, at least to the degree that it has been in the past.

Compounding the problem would be (some) females not masturbating to discover how to "ring the bell." Something like 70% of females do not orgasm from sexual intercourse alone. So, if a female is aroused but then constantly frustrated by a lack of bell ringing it can turn her off to sex further. She has to gain the confidence to not only learn her body (which will change throughout her life) but also to communicate what works for her to her partner.
I also wanted to point out that an absurdly high number of women are sexually abused/assulted and that can have an impact on their sexuality and future sexual experiences.

There are tons of misconceptions and unrealistic expectations for sex. I'm not sure that pornography or erotica exactly helps the matter, To be honest. They both can help add to the pressure and unrealistic expectations for all sexes. They can also be used as aids, so there ya go. Education, education, education!

I do think in some ways it is easier for the newer generation of women. There certainly isn't as much of a stigma to having multiple partners and pre-marital sex as there has been in previous decades.

Ugh, so as far as the body and mind being in conflict. Yes, they can be. And that is typically not a good outcome. Remember, even people who are being sexually abused can become physically aroused. Our mind is our largest sex organ, or so I've heard. The best sexual experiences are going to be when the mind and body are on the same page. Just because the body is aroused doesn't mean the whole experience is positive or one that the person will want to repeat.

Before there would be an increased heart beat, increased blood pressure and increased blood in the vaginal area, the mind has processed the stimuli and sent the signals to cause those physiological responses. The mind is definitely involved. No doubt there are libido aspects of the mind that are in conflict with the superego, and less often in conflict with the ego, such as in cases of sexual abuse. However, the tests conducted and shown in the Science of Lust program were not in a sexual abuse context, and yet the dissonance between the impulsive responses of the body to the stimuli and the prudish, turn-off response of the superego to that same stimuli. That is what I think is unhealthy, and I think perpetuated and inculcated in great part by religion.

[_Daheshist]

If "spirituality" had anything to do with mating, then "sweet-spirits" (fat Mormon women) would have no problem getting married. But they do.

Women are attracted to pheromones first, then wealth, then looks.

Men are attracted to looks, then youth, then pheromones (i.e. if a woman is ovulating she sends out pheromones that she is fertile which turns on guys ever more, but she has to be young and attractive first).

Okay, maybe some guys on this board need to watch this and find out what attracts women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtdbsXZY2Xg

While I do not believe in the premise of evolutionary psychology, that being everything we are and what we do is to attract and mate (no spirituality in the mix), the science quite often makes correct observations about sex and sexuality. Maybe some of the shy guys in wards should watch this and learn how to send out the right signals.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Compounding the problem would be (some) females not masturbating to discover how to "ring the bell." So, if a female is aroused but then constantly frustrated by a lack of bell ringing it can turn her off to sex further.

Finally, I just realized what this song is all about. It's kind of creepy to think my parents owned and played this record all of the time when I was a kid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPYese-Hl8M

[_just me]

Before there would be an increased heart beat, increased blood pressure and increased blood in the vaginal area, the mind has processed the stimuli and sent the signals to cause those physiological responses. The mind is definitely involved. No doubt there are libido aspects of the mind that are in conflict with the superego, and less often in conflict with the ego, such as in cases of sexual abuse. However, the tests conducted and shown in the Science of Lust program were not in a sexual abuse context, and yet the dissonance between the impulsive responses of the body to the stimuli and the prudish, turn-off response of the superego to that same stimuli. That is what I think is unhealthy, and I think perpetuated and inculcated in great part by religion.

Yeah, I guess my point was that physical arousal is not all it takes for someone to be ready to participate in partnered sex. That the women in that particular experiment were physically aroused and claimed not to be aroused could mean that arousal to them is more than a physical response. I do think that culture plays a part in the dissonance of the response.

I'm just not clear on why the women said they were less aroused when their bodies responded otherwise. Was it lack of understanding? Was it because arousal to them is more than physical and the emotional aspect was lacking? Did the porn make them feel icky, did they believe it should make them feel icky? Was it taboo or embarrassing for them to say they were aroused? etc.

I couldn't find the 4th segment of the show, by the way. I tried both tricks I know.

[_sock puppet]

Before there would be an increased heart beat, increased blood pressure and increased blood in the vaginal area, the mind has processed the stimuli and sent the signals to cause those physiological responses. The mind is definitely involved. No doubt there are libido aspects of the mind that are in conflict with the superego, and less often in conflict with the ego, such as in cases of sexual abuse. However, the tests conducted and shown in the Science of Lust program were not in a sexual abuse context, and yet the dissonance between the impulsive responses of the body to the stimuli and the prudish, turn-off response of the superego to that same stimuli. That is what I think is unhealthy, and I think perpetuated and inculcated in great part by religion.

Yeah, I guess my point was that physical arousal is not all it takes for someone to be ready to participate in partnered sex. That the women in that particular experiment were physically aroused and claimed not to be aroused could mean that arousal to them is more than a physical response. I do think that culture plays a part in the dissonance of the response.

I'm just not clear on why the women said they were less aroused when their bodies responded otherwise. Was it lack of understanding? Was it because arousal to them is more than physical and the emotional aspect was lacking? Did the porn make them feel icky, did they believe it should make them feel icky? Was it taboo or embarrassing for them to say they were aroused? etc.

I couldn't find the 4th segment of the show, by the way. I tried both tricks I know.

Neither could I. But I found another series of it, broken into three parts and watched 3/3.

[_sock puppet]

I'm just not clear on why the women said they were less aroused when their bodies responded otherwise. Was it lack of understanding? Was it because arousal to them is more than physical and the emotional aspect was lacking? Did the porn make them feel icky, did they believe it should make them feel icky? Was it taboo or embarrassing for them to say they were aroused? etc.

That's where I found the women's result interesting in how it contrasts men's results. Either the neurological wiring of women is to make a woman think she's not aroused when in fact her body is (i.e., wires crossed) as compared to the males whose wiring is in sync, or the female wiring too is in sync but it is a learned mental denial in the face of obvious physical arousal. Crossed wires would be contrary to procreation, and thus contrary to the survival of the species. So I am left thinking the mental denial when the body is aroused is a learned prudishness, one that is neither healthy for the individual woman, the men that want to mate with her, or the perpetuation of the species. It is simply an unproductive, prudish response.

[_just me]

Neither could I. But I found another series of it, broken into three parts and watched 3/3.

Oh, yay! Found it! Thanks

[_just me]

I'm just not clear on why the women said they were less aroused when their bodies responded otherwise. Was it lack of understanding? Was it because arousal to them is more than physical and the emotional aspect was lacking? Did the porn make them feel icky, did they believe it should make them feel icky? Was it taboo or embarrassing for them to say they were aroused? etc.

That's where I found the women's result interesting in how it contrasts men's results. Either the neurological wiring of women is to make a woman think she's not aroused when in fact her body is (i.e., wires crossed) as compared to the males whose wiring is in sync, or the female wiring too is in sync but it is a learned mental denial in the face of obvious physical arousal. Crossed wires would be contrary to procreation, and thus contrary to the survival of the species. So I am left thinking the mental denial when the body is aroused is a learned prudishness, one that is neither healthy for the individual woman, the men that want to mate with her, or the perpetuation of the species. It is simply an unproductive, prudish response.

I think that for women it is very much intuitive to not mate with someone just because they get your juices flowing and I don't think that is bad.

In other words, perpetuating the species is more risky for the female. It is very productive for her to try and limit her risk by only mating with men who not only arouse her physically but also make her feel safe and that children would be cared for. The dissonance could be more of a safety mechanism that just needs to be understood for what it is. Obviously, these are just some ideas.

It could be just from learned behavior that it is unacceptable for females to be aroused by pornographic images. I just am not sure I'm sold on that conclusion because I think it is probably more complicated.

The third segment was really good, my favorite by far. It shows women who really aren't sexually aroused by anything, but are able to change it....and then a very small portion of the population who just isn't sexually aroused ever.

As an aside, I really don't think that this program will help any of the men on this board learn what will attract a woman as hoped by the OP.