Do "straight" women really exist?

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
What Do Women Want?

From the Times Magazine today:

Meredith Chivers is a creator of bonobo pornography. She is a 36-year-old psychology professor at Queen’s University in the small city of Kingston, Ontario, a highly regarded scientist and a member of the editorial board of the world’s leading journal of sexual research, Archives of Sexual Behavior. The bonobo film was part of a series of related experiments she has carried out over the past several years. She found footage of bonobos, a species of ape, as they mated, and then, because the accompanying sounds were dull — “bonobos don’t seem to make much noise in sex,” she told me, “though the females give a kind of pleasure grin and make chirpy sounds” — she dubbed in some animated chimpanzee hooting and screeching. She showed the short movie to men and women, straight and gay. To the same subjects, she also showed clips of 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.

While the subjects watched on a computer screen, Chivers, who favors high boots and fashionable rectangular glasses, measured their arousal in two ways, objectively and subjectively. The participants sat in a brown leatherette La-Z-Boy chair in her small lab at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, a prestigious psychiatric teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, where Chivers was a postdoctoral fellow and where I first talked with her about her research a few years ago. The genitals of the volunteers were connected to plethysmographs — for the men, an apparatus that fits over the penis and gauges its swelling; for the women, a little plastic probe that sits in the vagina and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow. An engorgement of blood spurs a lubricating process called vaginal transudation: the seeping of moisture through the walls. The participants were also given a keypad so that they could rate how aroused they felt.

The men, on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms “category specific” ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.

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. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And 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.

“I feel like a pioneer at the edge of a giant forest,” Chivers said, describing her ambition to understand the workings of women’s arousal and desire. “There’s a path leading in, but it isn’t much.” She sees herself, she explained, as part of an emerging “critical mass” of female sexologists starting to make their way into those woods. These researchers and clinicians are consumed by the sexual problem Sigmund Freud posed to one of his female disciples almost 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?”
 

zhao

there are no accidents

interesting. thanks.

i think all humans, male or female, basically want the same things, and that almost all differentiation, and in this case, the bizarre incongruities between mind and body, as well as confusion with categories/identity, all result from the effects of a long history of domestication and sexualization -- the effects of almost all culture and no nature.

men like to cuddle less because they been taught to be that way, etc, etc, etc, etc. --- and by the same token, "straight" men don't exist either -- only trained to be that way.

and to attribute these differences to genetic and biological causes is a big mistake.

i do not buy into the exoticizing of femininity as a mysterious other which men can not possibly understand; it seems to me to be just another, maybe flip, side of objectification ---- but nomad, apologize in advance if im off here, you seem to be somehow invested in the idea? and i say this with your recent, forceful and repeated claim that "no man can ever know if a womans orgasms are real" in mind.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
i do not buy into the exoticizing of femininity as a mysterious other which men can not possibly understand; it seems to me to be just another, maybe flip, side of objectification

Yes, and this is connected to the also mythical idea that male sexuality has an 'on/off' switch, and that's it, end of story. (The above study, which I've heard of before, notwithstanding; my point being there is more to being 'turned on' than having a hard-on, as counterintuitive as that may sound.)
 
Last edited:

Agent

dgaf ngaf cgaf
where can i buy that sex-data-gathering machinery? just out of curiosity

ed: this sounds like a kinky fetish deal but it isn't. i'm interested in legit scientific study. but it makes me think, how do different people respond to fetish or abnormal pornographic imagery? since it is by definition 'abnormal', most people shouldn't respond to it at all, from any angle: physical, emotional, erotic, or as part of a fantasy or sex daydream.

my libido isn't linear. i get aroused for no reason sometimes. i never 'think' about sex, except if i'm writing about psychoanalysis.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Yes, and this is connected to the also mythical idea that male sexuality has an 'on/off' switch, and that's it, end of story. (The above study, which I've heard of before, notwithstanding; my point being there is more to being 'turned on' than having a hard-on, as counterintuitive as that may sound.)

Yeah, you've got to have a goat, too. That's not just me, is it?

Shit.

But the whole gender roles thing is so irritating, and, as you imply, so often propagated by women who think they know the essence of men, but that they can never be known. Which is the most tedious thing ever.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
where can i buy that sex-data-gathering machinery? just out of curiosity

ed: this sounds like a kinky fetish deal but it isn't. i'm interested in legit scientific study. but it makes me think, how do different people respond to fetish or abnormal pornographic imagery? since it is by definition 'abnormal', most people shouldn't respond to it at all, from any angle: physical, emotional, erotic, or as part of a fantasy or sex daydream.

my libido isn't linear. i get aroused for no reason sometimes. i never 'think' about sex, except if i'm writing about psychoanalysis.

Hahaha, a fetish for sex-as-a-stimulus/response-psych-study, could there be anything more Dissensian? ;)
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
interesting. thanks.

i think all humans, male or female, basically want the same things, and that almost all differentiation, and in this case, the bizarre incongruities between mind and body, as well as confusion with categories/identity, all result from the effects of a long history of domestication and sexualization -- the effects of almost all culture and no nature.

men like to cuddle less because they been taught to be that way, etc, etc, etc, etc. --- and by the same token, "straight" men don't exist either -- only trained to be that way.

and to attribute these differences to genetic and biological causes is a big mistake.

I agree with the sentiment here--sure, deep down, we all want to be wanted and loved, etc--but I hestitate when it comes to being entirely sure that biology and culture aren't some kind of borromean knot we don't yet understand, rather than biology being culture's little slave led around on a leash or vice versa.

Also, what was interesting about the study was that it steered clear of statements like "men like to cuddle less". They do? Says who? There is no data in the study that supports this and I would guess that studies would not bear this statement out.

What the study determined was that arousal patterns in men are category specific. An easier and maybe sloppier/less scientific way to say this might be to say that male sexuality is fetishistic.

This tallies entirely with my personal experience.

zhao said:
i do not buy into the exoticizing of femininity as a mysterious other which men can not possibly understand; it seems to me to be just another, maybe flip, side of objectification ---- but nomad, apologize in advance if im off here, you seem to be somehow invested in the idea? and i say this with your recent, forceful and repeated claim that "no man can ever know if a womans orgasms are real" in mind.

There's a huge difference between saying that a man cannot tell whether a woman has climaxed/orgasmed and saying that males as a whole cannot hope to understand female sexuality. (I know lots of men who understand pretty well, actually...) This is not some sort of strange statement. It's just a fact. It's the same way you can't know if someone is lying about what their favorite color is, or the same thing as saying that nobody can ever really know if another person has anything happening inside their bodies that is invisible to the naked eye. The fact that women do not ejaculate makes their orgasms invisible, and therefore the only way to be sure a woman has one is for her to be completely honest about it.

I do not "exoticize" anything.

The point of the article is that females--for reasons yet unknown--are not as "category specific" in their arousal patterns.

This also tallies very well with my personal experience.
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Yes, and this is connected to the also mythical idea that male sexuality has an 'on/off' switch, and that's it, end of story. (The above study, which I've heard of before, notwithstanding; my point being there is more to being 'turned on' than having a hard-on, as counterintuitive as that may sound.)

Well, I agree with this.

I don't think that having an erection is always the same thing as arousal.

The obvious medical example is the the blue pill one: for men with type II diabetes (usually they're at least 35) with erectile dysfunction who are treated with viagra or cialis, they often report that despite having a massive hard-on they are not very aroused or titillated.

What I found interesting about the article was that whenever the different female researchers wound up talking about what women wanted in specific terms, they were very obviously projecting. Like the woman who was talking about sex with strangers? Ehhh... no thanks. That was obviously her kink. Being ravaged against a wall? These are common fantasies but you could tell these women were losing their objectivity. It would be impossible not to, that's why it's best to avoid talking in broad generalities unless you have some sort of data to back it up (and even then, you can question *why* people behave this way)...

Personally I think that even within category specific sexuality there's a lot of room for difference. In fact I know for sure there is--I've known lots of men who can't get aroused in the presence of dozens of naked women unless one of them is wearing a specific type of red patent leather shoe, whereas most other men couldn't give a toss as long as there was a naked woman around.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Yeah, you've got to have a goat, too. That's not just me, is it?

Shit.

But the whole gender roles thing is so irritating, and, as you imply, so often propagated by women who think they know the essence of men, but that they can never be known. Which is the most tedious thing ever.

I don't think that Baboon.

You know what's tedious for women? Having sex with men who don't realize that it's only less than 30% of women who are physically capable of having orgasms through penetration/intercourse alone.

And I even think that statistic is seriously inflated. Most of the women who claim that they can have orgasms from intercourse alone, if you press them to describe an orgasm, you'll find they have no clue what one is.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
You know what's also tedious for women?

A culture that penalizes any woman who speaks up or speaks out about this.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I find it tedious clearing my inbox every day of spam telling me how laughably inadequate my penis is. Then again, you probably do as well.
 

Sick Boy

All about pride and egos
An ex-girlfriend of mine once told me that if she ever did watch porn, she'd watch lesbian porn because it appealed more to what she found sexy.

That is, not a butch hairy guy pounding the shit out of some hapless victim as his buddy gets right up in there for the extended 2 minute close-up with the video camera.

That being said, maybe she was trying to tell me something.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Yup. I don't really get that. To be perfectly honest, very large ones are not any better than average and I like pain but tearing everytime gets tedious too.

I also get tired of being told I'd look better with bags full of silicon shoved under the muscle tissue in my chest, too. That's pretty tedious.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
An ex-girlfriend of mine once told me that if she ever did watch porn, she'd watch lesbian porn because it appealed more to what she found sexy.

That is, not a butch hairy guy pounding the shit out of some hapless victim as his buddy gets right up in there for the extended 2 minute close-up with the video camera.

That being said, maybe she was trying to tell me something.

Yeah, now *this* was more the point of why I posted this article. I don't think people got it.

Women respond to more diverse stimuli than men do it seems. I'm not saying that's bad or good, I'm not saying "straight men are awful", I'm just saying, as I've always intuited, this research seems to suggest that women respond to other women, women with women, men with men, etc. Women are less category specific, and more act specific or individual-act specific.

For example, take a picture of a pretty straight woman wearing very expensive lingerie from Agent Provocateur in a five star hotel room who is wearing minimal makeup making out with another woman. I think this sort of picture is going to arouse a man and a woman. But a close up of the same woman but this time with a spray tan, a pushup bra that simulates breast implants, really cheap acrylic teddy in a bright color, platform shoes getting double teamed in the Hollywood Hills is going to be more appealing to a man, even though technically maybe a woman might have a physical "arousal" response to it.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
my libido isn't linear. i get aroused for no reason sometimes. i never 'think' about sex, except if i'm writing about psychoanalysis.

This is where I have trouble too.

Like I feel really bad for most women, I think most women feel a shit ton of pressure to "perform" up to the standards society has set for female sexual behavior (which includes things like faking orgasms, or at least not being honest about that kind of thing) without ever really discovering their own sexuality at all. It took me a long time to figure out I was not like them.

The type of epilepsy I have (which luckily I've mostly outgrown) I have sps activity or what's better known as petit mal seizures that used to make me have orgasms out of nowhere when I was younger without any genital touching. Maybe it was a horny teen thing. But still I can do it all in my mind.
 
Top