The Science of Lust

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Maybe women are influenced by more than just automatic bodily reactions. Maybe they don't like the bad acting, cheap production values, lack of character development, lack of emotional or intellectual stimulation ...

Women, being more nuanced creations than men, often feel conflicted when confronted by something like porn.

Perhaps, but the mind and body can be in conflict with each other. I suppose you could put bacon in front of a hungry Islamic fundamentalist and he might find it disgusting, but I will bet his digestive system will be analyzing the stimulus and is getting ready to eat the food. Of course the reason he feels the way he does about the pig meat is due to his upbringing, not his biology.

I think the same is true of women and porn. A woman raised in a more modern home would probably look at pornographic images and find them arousing, both psychologically and physically, but one from a very traditional upbringing will only get turned on physically. This cognitive dissonance may be the reason some Mormon women freak out about porn -- the conflict generated by knowing males look at this stuff might cause her more sub conscious resentment than disgust. Add to this her expectation that the man is supposed to protect her and the family from such influences and you have the perfect recipe for disaster if the guy is caught viewing it.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but lately it seems like porn is regularly trotted out on this board as some kind of wholesome entertainment, something without drawbacks, and something that is good just because the church says it is bad. Is that what you want to say?

I think it's entirely natural a for woman to be simultaneously turned on by porn images and disgusted by the sleaziness of it all, the total lack of any intellectual or emotional substance, to say nothing of exploitation issues, etc. A woman can have a perfectly balanced and healthy regard for sex and still have an aversion for porn. Porn is not sex. Porn is a representation of sex. Porn could disappear and sex would still keep going strong. Porn would be missed mostly by people who are only looking and not participating with a partner.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Maybe women are influenced by more than just automatic bodily reactions. Maybe they don't like the bad acting, cheap production values, lack of character development, lack of emotional or intellectual stimulation ...

Women, being more nuanced creations than men, often feel conflicted when confronted by something like porn.

Perhaps, but the mind and body can be in conflict with each other. I suppose you could put bacon in front of a hungry Islamic fundamentalist and he might find it disgusting, but I will bet his digestive system will be analyzing the stimulus and is getting ready to eat the food. Of course the reason he feels the way he does about the pig meat is due to his upbringing, not his biology.

I think the same is true of women and porn. A woman raised in a more modern home would probably look at pornographic images and find them arousing, both psychologically and physically, but one from a very traditional upbringing will only get turned on physically. This cognitive dissonance may be the reason some Mormon women freak out about porn -- the conflict generated by knowing males look at this stuff might cause her more sub conscious resentment than disgust. Add to this her expectation that the man is supposed to protect her and the family from such influences and you have the perfect recipe for disaster if the guy is caught viewing it.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but lately it seems like porn is regularly trotted out on this board as some kind of wholesome entertainment, something without drawbacks, and something that is good just because the church says it is bad. Is that what you want to say?

I think it's entirely natural a for woman to be simultaneously turned on by porn images and disgusted by the sleaziness of it all, the total lack of any intellectual or emotional substance, to say nothing of exploitation issues, etc. A woman can have a perfectly balanced and healthy regard for sex and still have an aversion for porn. Porn is not sex. Porn is a representation of sex. Porn could disappear and sex would still keep going strong. Porn would be missed mostly by people who are only looking and not participating with a partner.

[_Fiannan]

Lucretia MacEvil, you are framing what I said in a context that was never intended. My point is that if members are fighting a 21st. Century phenomena with 1950s thinking they are doomed to fail. There are three areas that anti-porn members seem to concentrate:

1) Porn is an issue of males exploiting females. Whether it is males producing porn movies or males watching them it is all a male thing.

2) Women do not like porn. Women are totally disgusted with porn and the fastest way to make a woman gag is to even mention the issue of porn.

3) Any use is addiction.

On point #1, women are catching up with men in the use of porn. I would have liked the information about UK porn use to break down the gender consumption by age since I have read that porn viewing by women is determined by one important variable -- age. Older women rarely look at porn, middle aged women don't look at it much and young women look at it a lot. In regards to men, I would assume older men may look at it occasionally, middle aged men a lot and young men a lot. So if everyone is lumped together it looks like less women are fans of porn, but still it is significantly higher than one would believe listening to talks in sacrament.

On point #2 there are as many forms of porn today as there are preferences of fans. In the 1950s porn was sleazy stuff men watched at their lodge, or snuck home in brown paper bags. There was no female audience to speak of. Yet today there is feminist porn, lesbian porn, sex-friendly porn, romance/reality porn and yuppie porn. In fact, many women now produce movies. So any young woman hearing that porn is violent or degrading will wonder what the speaker is talking about if all they watch is female oriented porn that features romance.

Point #3, it is addictive. Maybe in rare instances but I would bet more women are skipping sex to play with their Facebook than men skipping sex so they can look at porn.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -ISPs.html

[_ajax18]

I don't think women have near as much sex drive as men for the simple reason that a female having a high sex drive doesn't increase reproductive fitness that much. I see the situation as one in which at some point the female decides she wants to reproduce so she simply lets down the drawbridge. Willing males are always there pursuing and waiting for her.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot becoming Mr. Right for a girl is just about happening to be there at the right time. A lot of times I didn't see much difference in the man a girl decided to marry and the man the girl went out with once and decided not to call back.

Female sex drive seems dependent on testosterone and is probably just a redundancy in nature not much different than men having nipples.

[_Fiannan]

Ajax18, how then do you explain lesbians? They seem to enjoy sex and in that pairing off you have two women who have basically the same biochemistry as any other women.

Testosterone is not everything.

[_ajax18]

Ajax18, how then do you explain lesbians? They seem to enjoy sex and in that pairing off you have two women who have basically the same biochemistry as any other women.

Testosterone is not everything.

I agree that choice and conditioning are still huge factors in homosexuality. It's not all about testosterone. But that's comparing women to other women. When comparing women to men, biochemistry plays an even more decisive role and the difference is even greater between the two parties being compared.

It's one level to enjoy sex or perhaps be receptive to it. It's another level to be male and willing to risk death in a fight with another male or ignore the fact that a hunter is probably waiting in the tree with a gun for you to follow the dough scent.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Lucretia MacEvil, you are framing what I said in a context that was never intended. My point is that if members are fighting a 21st. Century phenomena with 1950s thinking they are doomed to fail. There are three areas that anti-porn members seem to concentrate:

1) Porn is an issue of males exploiting females. Whether it is males producing porn movies or males watching them it is all a male thing.

2) Women do not like porn. Women are totally disgusted with porn and the fastest way to make a woman gag is to even mention the issue of porn.

3) Any use is addiction.

On point #1, women are catching up with men in the use of porn. I would have liked the information about UK porn use to break down the gender consumption by age since I have read that porn viewing by women is determined by one important variable -- age. Older women rarely look at porn, middle aged women don't look at it much and young women look at it a lot. In regards to men, I would assume older men may look at it occasionally, middle aged men a lot and young men a lot. So if everyone is lumped together it looks like less women are fans of porn, but still it is significantly higher than one would believe listening to talks in sacrament.

On point #2 there are as many forms of porn today as there are preferences of fans. In the 1950s porn was sleazy stuff men watched at their lodge, or snuck home in brown paper bags. There was no female audience to speak of. Yet today there is feminist porn, lesbian porn, sex-friendly porn, romance/reality porn and yuppie porn. In fact, many women now produce movies. So any young woman hearing that porn is violent or degrading will wonder what the speaker is talking about if all they watch is female oriented porn that features romance.

Point #3, it is addictive. Maybe in rare instances but I would bet more women are skipping sex to play with their Facebook than men skipping sex so they can look at porn.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -ISPs.html

I'm very relieved to know that I misunderstood you. I'm not sure that I do understand you yet, however, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Porn was sleazy in the 50's and it still is. If women are tolerating it better these days, it's because women in general are degenerating, not that porn is improving. (And by porn, I don't mean erotica necessarily).

The thing about teenagers learning about sex from porn makes me want to jump out the window.

[_just me]

Men and women (generally) approach sex differently. Men feel loved by having sex. Women need to feel loved to have sex.

Nobody is wrong. Just different.

Men aren't bad for wanting sex...even lots and lots of sex. Women aren't bad for needing more than physical arousal to want to have sex.

Human beings have sex with their bodies. Men, especially, find the female form very sexually arousing. Watching other people have sex is sexually arousing, as seen by the study conducted in the video.

Men shouldn't be shamed because they are triggered more by the visual than women are. There is nothing wrong with that. The visual act of sex can be every bit as beautiful as reading about it. Women shouldn't feel ashamed that they are aroused by watching sex.

Point #3, it is addictive. Maybe in rare instances but I would bet more women are skipping sex to play with their Facebook than men skipping sex so they can look at porn.

I lol'd so hard.

To me, if someone is addicted to something it is better to figure out WHY rather than villianize the substance anyway. Because some people are addicted to things you can't 100% give up....like food.

[_sock puppet]

Men and women (generally) approach sex differently. Men feel loved by having sex. Women need to feel loved to have sex.

Nobody is wrong. Just different.

Men aren't bad for wanting sex...even lots and lots of sex. Women aren't bad for needing more than physical arousal to want to have sex.

Human beings have sex with their bodies. Men, especially, find the female form very sexually arousing. Watching other people have sex is sexually arousing, as seen by the study conducted in the video.

Men shouldn't be shamed because they are triggered more by the visual than women are. There is nothing wrong with that. The visual act of sex can be every bit as beautiful as reading about it. Women shouldn't feel ashamed that they are aroused by watching sex.

Point #3, it is addictive. Maybe in rare instances but I would bet more women are skipping sex to play with their Facebook than men skipping sex so they can look at porn.

I lol'd so hard.

To me, if someone is addicted to something it is better to figure out WHY rather than villianize the substance anyway. Because some people are addicted to things you can't 100% give up....like food.

Hi, just me,

I am finding this line of discussion quite interesting (as I always did your old avatar--I miss it).

It seems that the same, visual stimuli arouses males both physically and mentally.

It seems that the visual stimuli arouses females physically, but perhaps not mentally.

When it comes to sexual arousal, I think the dichotomy between mental and physical might be an artificial one. That is, to arouse the body, the porn images enter the brain through the senses of sight and hearing. Via the brain processing that visual and audio stimuli, the physical body arousal was triggered.

So the question boils down a bit as to why did the males report feeling aroused when their bodies were aroused, but the females did not report feeling aroused despite their bodies being aroused?

This is complicated by the overlay of the arousal women report from reading romance novels, but deny from seeing suggestive pictures. Could this be that that females see the women in suggestive pictures as threatening competitors for the male's affections? Even though no males were present during the testing, they reported not being aroused from seeing the porn.

I am not aware of studies where females rely on verbal over pictorial (to a greater extent than males) in other aspects of life than sex. (As a male, I must ask, are there aspects of life other than sex? At the end of The Science of Lust, Vlad the scientist seemed to suggest there might not be.)

I suppose I'm just trying to 'drill down further' on this topic (pun intended). Seriously, I would like to read more of what you have to say about why you think that romance novels have more of an effect on women's arousal than men's. Do you know of any studies of female arousal in more primitive cultures, where verbal communication is less than in 'civilized' parts of the world?

[_ajax18]

Men aren't bad for wanting sex...even lots and lots of sex. Women aren't bad for needing more than physical arousal to want to have sex.

That's such a good point. It took me far too long to figure these things out. I really feel like my society surrounding me growing up was running from this truth. I grew up very confused.