Female Sexuality

ego amigo

ego amigo

housewifery
#5
#5
what i found most interesting is that the women lied or were unaware of their own desires (being turned on by every damn thing). wait- im looking at a picture of a bunny. dammmmn.
 
S

Sblake

New Member
#12
#12
rixtyseven said:
I found most interesting was that some of them were turned on by Bonobo monkeys.
Click to expand...
To nerd out for a second, I think there's an interesting point made in this article (either explicitly or implicitly, I admit that I didn't read the whole thing) about physical arousal versus mental arousal. Of course we can say that the results imply that women's minds are at war with our bodies, but Slate.com made a good point about evolution and women becoming aroused even during nonconsensual sex that implies that the schism between physical arousal and mental arousal might exist for a reason. For example, a woman who is physically aroused is less likely to become torn up and thus infected and thus die after a rape, so she becomes physically aroused (but not mentally aroused) during a rape to protect herself from further injury--it's a sexual "fight or flight" response. In short, it is very possible, and probably in your best interest, for your body to say "yes" even if your mind says "no" (and that your mind is what makes the ultimate decision in regards to consent).

Also, the body tends to react in the same way to stimulus that they see, even if it's not happening to them--i.e. porn turns you on, you cry or get scared during movies, etc. So women might become physically aroused (if not mentally) to some degree (to what degree the article really didn't say) if the body thinks sex might be a possibility--which might be any sexual circumstance given that women are usually the sexual recipients and, back in the days of 'yore, didn't have as much control over their sexual destinies.

So women who say they're not turned on by bonobos (but come on those pants are AWESOME) even though their genitals say otherwise, might not be confused. They're just evolutionarily split into two sexual halves where the mind can override the body. So, in conclusion, if they say that bonobos turn them on, and the data supports it, then cool. If they say they're not turned on by bonobos, even though the data says that they might be, they probably aren't turned on by bonobos.

If I killed this thread, sorry.

Nerd out.
 
Last edited:
rixtyseven

rixtyseven

Rob S.
#14
#14
citizenhudson said:
I think we had a discussion about this a year ago and you were SUPER FREAKED OUT by my bisexuality. Glad to see you are educating yourself, old Rob.
Click to expand...
I was not going to mention you because of privacy, but I'm being completely honest when I say that I read this article with our conversations in mind.
 
Last edited:
saintlennybruce

saintlennybruce

agent of Contact
#15
#15
Sblake said:
To nerd out for a second, I think there's an interesting point made in this article (either explicitly or implicitly, I admit that I didn't read the whole thing) about physical arousal versus mental arousal. Of course we can say that the results imply that women's minds are at war with our bodies, but Slate.com made a good point about evolution and women becoming aroused even during nonconsensual sex that implies that the schism between physical arousal and mental arousal might exist for a reason. For example, a woman who is physically aroused is less likely to become torn up and thus infected and thus die after a rape, so she becomes physically aroused (but not mentally aroused) during a rape to protect herself from further injury--it's a sexual "fight or flight" response. In short, it is very possible, and probably in your best interest, for your body to say "yes" even if your mind says "no" (and that your mind is what makes the ultimate decision in regards to consent).

Also, the body tends to react in the same way to stimulus that they see, even if it's not happening to them--i.e. porn turns you on, you cry or get scared during movies, etc. So women might become physically aroused (if not mentally) to some degree (to what degree the article really didn't say) if the body thinks sex might be a possibility--which might be any sexual circumstance given that women are usually the sexual recipients and, back in the days of 'yore, didn't have as much control over their sexual destinies.

So women who say they're not turned on by bonobos (but come on those pants are AWESOME) even though their genitals say otherwise, might not be confused. They're just evolutionarily split into two sexual halves where the mind can override the body. So, in conclusion, if they say that bonobos turn them on, and the data supports it, then cool. If they say they're not turned on by bonobos, even though the data says that they might be, they probably aren't turned on by bonobos.

If I killed this thread, sorry.

Nerd out.
Click to expand...
Of course, even though this article focused on neuroscientific foundations of female sexuality, there are definitely complex cultural and psychological factors that affect its development and expression. A cross-cultural study, that ran the same tests on women from a society that didn't demonize female desire and lesbianism, would be an ideal point of comparison (if such a place exists). Thankfully, the researchers made a point of cautioning drawing sweeping conclusions from their studies, like:

"All women are bisexuals harboring secret submission fantasies."
or
"All men are either straight or gay. Regardless, they want to be on top."

. . . how does this relate to improv, precisely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top