And how exactly is liking sex related to mental illness?

That actually is a bit surprising to me. Personally, I have always been more turned on by verbal stuff (e.g., erotica, accents or foreign languages), and many of my girlfriends have agreed that we seem less turned on by erotic images than our boyfriends/husbands do. I have no idea what previous research actually shows.

RE: The mental illness thing... lol, where was the segue for that last sentence?

I guess women who like to look at porn are deviants.

Wait.

The article suggests that women responded to the photos in the same way that men did. Not that they liked them, found them pleasurable, or anything of the sort. Just that they responded. Sounds to me like the article writers made some mental leaps.

And, I do want to point out that liking sex and liking pictures of naked people are two different things.

Okay, here's more clarification about the study: http://www.physorg.com/news69083681.html.

oops... haha, sorry Vanessa, I guess I missed that you already posted a bajillion links! ;)

pamps here...

there is a fair amount of research suggesting the opposite... not that women like or don't like sex... but that women are less cued (on average) to visual sex cues than men, on average. jenna is right. liking pictures (visual sexual cues) is the issue, not sex qua sex.

regardless of the issue - ONE study doesn't prove anything. anybody even remotely familiar with "social science" studies recognizes that conflicts between studies are the norm

historically, certainly, in every society i am aware of - "visual" porn is a male dominated product (the vast majority purchased by men), whereas other types of porn (literary etc.) not so much so at all

While I'm the first to hunt out latent gender bias in research as is often the case this has more to do with the media's reading of a study than the actual study itself. The suprising thing for the researchers wasn't that women were turned on by erotic images, but that their brain response was faster for erotic images than for disturbing images. Thus their assumption, which was disproven, was that the brain processed visual stimuli at the same rate and responded at the same rate to powerfull images whether they were disturbing or pleasant. Problematic because that is a subjective criteria, something they appeared not to investigate much. However their idea about mental illness may have something to do with that subjective criteria, such as understanding sexual disorders on a cognitive level, most likely paraphilias. However, like a great deal of cognitive research these findings are very much only applicable to the experimental situation discussed and may be problematic when the researches try to apply it to what they percieve as deviant behavior.

In other not-so-amazing news, both men and women shiver and get goosebumps when their bodies are presented with sufficient cold stimulus.

Physiological responses to stimuli are a fact of life, which is why almost all child rape victims are shown pornography by their abusers and sometimes rape victims have orgasms.

More intriguing to me concerning gendered responses to imagery are studies that reveal men actually derive pleasure out of seeing someone they don't like getting hurt while women do not get pleasure out of other people's pain even if they don't like the person. WTF?

The problem with that is “pornagraphic images� vary for what accounts for is from society to society. In Cambodia, for example, hips of a woman are a very appealing and from what I understand a bigger deal than breasts. You go to Irian Jaya, seeing breasts don’t mean a damn thing to men. So if you took a couple guys from London and New York and Manokwari and put them in front of a screen with a topless woman with her hands on her breasts provocatively, the brain waves in the first two will react much more than the latter, changes are.

I‘m more turned on by images AND literary (not cheesy "I touched her petal...") and verbalizing (dirty talk, not "yer so perrr-ty") than my boyfriend. However, many of the images I see pander to the hetero-sexual male so I’ll be turned on by, say, basic in-out-in-out doggy style because of the suggestion of sex (it actually hurts me though, so I can’t do it) but I’m more turned on if I find that the man is genuinely stimulating the woman (or, you know, pretending to).

The confusion seems to be due to very bad reporting over what the study was really about. Here is a link to an abstract of the article that has links to the actual articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16712815&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

The study was examining how a brain rapidly evaluates visual information. "The purpose of the present study was to examine whether neuroelectric responses elicited by complex pictures discriminate between specific, biologically relevant contents of the visual scene and to determine how early in the picture processing this discrimination occurs." While I haven't read the entire article yet, it seems that the general point of the study was to better understand how the brain processes the socially and biologically relevant information from visual information (not just sexual). They really do not say that women are deviant for having responses to sexual visual cues, just that this finding is different than what other studies seemed to previously suggest.

there are all sorts of sexual cues - olfactory, visual, tactile, literary, etc. etc. etc.

the research i have seen shows pretty convincingly that women are more diffuse.

iow, any given woman is more likely to have stronger reactions to varied stimuli (not just visual) vs. men whose stimulation axis is generally more centered around the visual stimuli

of course, individuals vary blah blah blah

I am a woman and I am never turned on by dirty talk, accent or anything of the kind. I actually never knew that any girls do. I thought this is something guys have made up. Well, I guess I was wrong. I am however very much turned on by looking at pictures of naked men, particularly the cheesy kind, you know, the fireman types. I also like to watch porn as long as the girl doesn’t get called bitch or ho or whatever and doesn’t get the stuff in her face. I know some of my close friends that feel the same. I don’t necessarily admit this in the company of other girls though, because I feel judged by them. I feel that there is a lot of pressure to keep saying we are not visual. I have experience the same thing with masturbation: girls just don’t masturbate.

Also, the fact that porn industry is male-dominated does not prove that women don’t watch porn. I have seen several surveys that showed a considerable percent of women download porn at work, etc., it’s just that the stigma is worse with women.

Jessica:
I guess women who like to look at porn are deviants.

Well, technically they are, according to the sociological definition of "deviance" (as in it goes against societal norms), but being a deviant certainly isn't a bad thing.

sojourner, as i said (and as we all know when talking human behavior) - individuals vary

regardless of the "pressure" to say we are not visual, i think the evidence clearly points to LESS visual (on average) stimulation for women and more diffuse stimulation

this is seen cross culturally, which is even more evidence of the truth of this phenomenon

there are numerous reasons as to why this might be true, and the evolutionary psychologists have some interesting ones
also, in almost every society i am aware of - men are the primary consumers of visual porn, and women the primary consumers of 'literary' porn - e.g. the harlequin romances thang

nobody is saying women aren't visual. if woemn weren't visual, chippendales et al would go out of the business. all the studies show is that women are, on average, less visual and more diffuse. that's all

it says NOTHING about an individual.

Sue, No one has suggested that men don't "turn women on" (thought the lesbians will disagree ;)) and your suggestion that women weren't alllowed to show it (until this ground breaking study) is ridiculous. This discussion is about whether women are EQUALLY stimulated by erotic images as men are, on average. As cute as your pedestal response is, it's a generalization and not a fair one. A lot of women have already said that images do not "turn them on" and that makes them no less normal than you. People are different and we should respect those differences.

I'm afraid visual cues aren't stimulating for me. Maybe it's because most porn is male-oriented, but the lighting is always so harsh and garish that I actually find the porn that I have seen to be a major turn-off. I cannot bear romance novels (literary porn?) as they are just too cheesy to stand. I never seem to have trouble becoming aroused without props, though, so I'm not concerned. That said, if I WAS interested in porn, I can count easily all the boyfriends I've had who would have been tickled pink and happy to indulge me - all of them. I've found that the only thing men like more than porn is sharing the porn with their girlfriend.

You know Sue, the "pretending to be an idiot" schtick would work a lot better if you had spelled miracle and parallel correctly. This way, you just look like an idiot.

There really is no perfect emoticon for astonishment.

I'm going to assume that Sue's "post" was a practical joke?

I appreciate your cheery, condescending tone. I expect that unless you are EXTREMELY young (as in, just hit puberty), you are in the same generation as I. Therefore your implication that I'm just too old and fartsy to understand missed the mark slightly.

I also appreciate your underlying assumption that only lesbians/prudes don't care for porn. How nice of you to apply a sweeping generalization to all the women on earth. How many billions of souls have just been reduced to this: "They like porn! Unless something is wrong with them!"

I think, perhaps, that you might be on the wrong site, Sue. It's your right, of course, to want to play the blonde-bimbo act, repeating every post about how much you like aerobics, and explaining how to "act dumb" so that "hot guys" will fuck you. That said, I doubt it will be received well by the majority of the members here. While it is an oft-repeated fallacy to go on a "Feminism is..." post, I think the majority of self-termed feminists would disapprove of your sexual tactics. Which is to say that if the only reason a guy will sleep with you is because he thinks you're stupid and non-threatening, he probably isn't worth sleeping with. There are a lot of "hot guys" worth sleeping with who DON'T require their partners to be brain-dead. Personally, I find the sex to be infinitely more pleasurable when the gentleman isn't congratulating himself on how much smarter he is.

It's worth noting, dear, that "fat chicks" aren't usually "fat" just because they "don't like aerobics". I highly urge some form of sensitivity course to help you understand the affects that medicine, bodily disease and disability, and poverty can have on obesity. I would also urge you to do some research on aerobics - it's not safe for everyone and it's irresponsible to recommend it carte blanche to everyone you know. Just a friendly heads-up.

Keep in mind that you'll have to hide the classes and research from the surfer boys - they won't fuck you if they suspect you're smarter than you look. Also remember to say, "oh gosh, what was I talking about?" and "oh, oh!" as much as possible. The former makes you seem enchantingly dumb and the latter makes him wonder if you sound similar while orgasming.

But, be warned: Guys who need "stupid" partners don't usually care if said partner orgasms.

just as an aside, *i* find the comment that surfer boys only want to f*ck dumb girls to be completely ignorant and untrue. i was on the surf team in college. (surf team is coed btw). surfers are not dumb, nor do they prefer dumb girls. frankly, that's a stereotype that is not true to real life imo.

maybe that's because too many people's only exposure to surfers is through movies like Point Break (doooooooooood) and Jeff Spicoli in fast times at ridgemont high. it might behoove you to recognize that you hold some prejudices too - in regards to surfers!

surfers, on the whole, tend to be a rather iconoclastic, individualistic, intrepid, noble group of people - if i say so myself. so, are you speaking from experience about surfers or is it just media inspired stereotypes?

in regards to the boobs - the social evolutionary explanation plays right along with the visual cues thing. just as a woman's lips are supposed to be an analog for those other lips (and redden when sexually excited), breasts (which in humans have lots of functionally useless tissue in addition to the mammary glands) arguably developed (evolved) to mimic the appearance of the cleft between the buttocks, which makes sense - since an upright woman vs. a 4 legged creature would have the visual cues at eye level.

Leave it to you, Jabosian, to churn out three paragraphs on surfers and the stereotypes they labor under.

I was sarcastically referencing the "totally hot guy in surf shorts and no underwear" that Sue had drawn into her bed by pretending not to know how to parallel park. My point was about a certain class of men in general - i.e., men who need their women to be stupid - and I used her surfer boy as an archetype to represent the class as a whole. I'm awfully sorry that I've unknowingly perpetuated this terrible, media-generated stereotype. I can only hope that real, long-term damage isn't inflicted on the surfing community.

And you say we feminists are sensitive!

I think a LOT of evolutionists would disagree with your theory that 'breats are supposed to look like butts', by the way.

I just have to respond to another part of Sue's post... the part about the surfer giving his number out "before his girlfriend was out of the changing room" really gets to me. If you are really a feminist in any way, wouldn't you respect another woman enough to not try to get her man or want to date a man who would be so disrespectful??

I just have a real problem with the way women often treat other women and the lack of respect to their relationships. As supposedly feminist women, shouldn't we put respect for our fellow woman above getting that "hot guy"'s number??

ej, i hope your sarcasm meter was turned on . i was only partially serious, but i do think that many so called "enlightened" ones who are 'eternally shocked' by certain stereotypes are remarkably free in flinging around stereotypes about surfers, "frat boys" etc.

basically, by doing the same with surfers 'being hypersensitive" about anti-surfer stereotypes, i turn the whole thang around.

ph33l the humor

Current theory is that breasts are modified immunoprotective glands. I've never seen any research attempting to tie them to buttocks.

See: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/breast_beginnings.php

(And I think the word you were reaching for is "biologists". Evolution as a general process is both too broad and too narrow to be a field of its own.)

"I've never seen any research attempting to tie them to buttocks."

that may be true. it doesn't therefore follow that same research/theorizing does not exist.

desmond morris comes to mind. his book "the naked ape" was among the first to forward this hypothesis.

do a google search for "automimicry" and "desmond morris"

the technical term btw is "automimicry"

here an interesting little article on this...
http://employees.csbsju.edu/lmealey/hotspots/Chapter13.htm

oh... and as for what a lot of evolutionists would or wouldn't agree with - that's fine with me. i think there is a reasonable amount of evidence/reasons for the breast development as buttock cleft analog evolutionary hypothesis. i'm not saying "it's true". i am saying there is strong evidence to support the hypopthesis. generally speaking, when physical attributes (in any species) evolve that are 'non-functional' for basic functionality, but 'functional' on an aesthetic basis, there are usually interesting reasons behind this phenomenon.

just as the phenotype that men tend to find attractive (cross culturally) in women tends to be those that have greater fecundity...

or that women find attractive in men tends to correlate with greater fathering potential...

if you isolate a picture of the breasts (crop) of a human female and the buttock cleft, the visual similarity is WAY too striking to be mere coincidence imo

when you also consider our (unusual) upright posture, and the fact that animals tend to have sex in a position that makes the buttocks such a prominent visual cue...

well, do the math

Hmm...How did this turn out to be about breasts . I thought boobs are there to feed babies, not to look like butts!
jabosian, you tend to make unjustified generalizations . In a lot of non-western cultures men are not attracted to big boobs. Even in western cultures big boobs didn’t use to be so popular. Have you ever seen a Greek statue with big boobs? They are or were considered to be attractive, when small and separated, not forming a cleavage, not looking at all like a buttocks. Here is an example of Venus with her very tiny breasts: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cranach/venus.jpg. Do the look like a butt?

I don't believe it is physically possible for females to be attracted to males--aside from when the male gives signs of sharing material wealth with the female, ala wedding rings, payday sex, etc. Testosterone is the key ingedient in physical sexual drive, and females possess FAR less of it than males.

You know... I have pretty big breasts, and I'm looking down right now... they definitely wouldn't look like a butt unless I was wearing a really tight shirt that pushed them together. On their own, they don't even touch.

JudasIscariot, thank you! I was wondering why I'm always so proud of my boyfriend when he succeeds at anything. I'm going to call him when he's done work and tell him that I'm not actually attracted to him - just his money and payday sex.

"In a lot of non-western cultures men are not attracted to big boobs"

i didn't say they did. i am well aware of that. in france, it is said that more than a handful is wasted

so please don't put words in my mouth

i never said this had ANYTHING to do with "big boobs'

this aint about big boobs

it's about boobs

hth

the nonfunctional (iow nonmammary tissue) in breasts makes up the VAST majority of volume in even small breasts

so, my point stands

and when we talk human behavior, we always talk generalities. that's a given.

men are taller than women. that's not behavior. it's a gender generality. same concept

it doesn't mean there's not lots of women taller than lots of men

same concept

jabosian, a sheepish grin is in order. Sarcasm doesn't project well on the Internet and I thought you were serious about the surfers. I still think you're 100% wrong on the "butts" theory, but that's another story.

prairielily, you never fail to crack me up. :D

Judas, I really hope you were joking. You know nothing about hormones if you believe what you're talking about.

veela, I forgot to make that point and I'm glad that you did. I never think it's appropriate to "steal" another woman's boyfriend - and I honestly can't understand wanting to have sex with a man who treats women so lightly.

The problem with that is “pornagraphic images� vary for what accounts for is from society to society. In Cambodia, for example, hips of a woman are a very appealing and from what I understand a bigger deal than breasts. You go to Irian Jaya, seeing breasts don’t mean a damn thing to men. So if you took a couple guys from London and New York and Manokwari and put them in front of a screen with a topless woman with her hands on her breasts provocatively, the brain waves in the first two will react much more than the latter, changes are.

Excellent points. Men AND women are "visual creatures," and there's no denying that a lot of it is learned behavior (tho all that buttcrack pontification is riduculous). This is easily observed in geographic as well as time period preferences, as well as just the fact that women weren't always encouraged to admit their love of naughty bits; I think this is directly responsible for some women thinking they aren't actually turned on by such imagery!

I have seen several surveys that showed a considerable percent of women download porn at work, etc., it’s just that the stigma is worse with women.

If you are downloading porn at work, then you deserve the stigma.

Word, EJ. On pretty much everything.

The real problem with playing dumb to get a guy, I agree, is that you end up with a guy who...wants a dumb woman. Which...why...do you want to sleep with that guy? He...doesn't want you. He can only get it up when he thinks the woman is an idiot. He's gonna shrivel up the first time you accidentally use a three-syllable word.

Gee, Sue. Here I am at 30. Take it from someone who's been younger and is now old and venerable, according to you: older is better. If you're lucky, you learn a few things along the way. Like, you might learn how to fine-tune your posts so it's not quite so obvious that you're trying to wind us all up.

Right on, EG. :D

I long for the more subtle trolls. ;)

I have serious difficulty believing that "Sue" is, in fact, who she says she is, or even a woman at all! :O I mean, "Sue" has to reassure us everyone other line that she's got big breasts, a great ass, is perpetually horny, and oh, yeah, has big breasts! :D

The lady doth protest too much.

Sue, can you please go troll elsewhere?

Thanks. It's annoying.

(Or, Mod, can you ban that ID?)

sorry about that jenna. done and done.

C'est bien, Jessica! Thanks for taking care of it. I have NO idea why I found that so annoying....