Study on Women's Brains

[buDdha]

I've been talking with a colleague at school about women and brains. She gave me an interesting article from the NYT that reports a couple of things. When men watch homoerotic and heterosexual sex, a naked man alone, and a woman, and bonobo monkeys having sex, men's desires fell out entirely by sexual orientation. Heterosexual men were aroused by the couple and woman.

Desire was measured by genital monitoring and self-reporting. Men's bodies corresponded exactly to what they reported.

Women, on the other hand, tested very differently. They showed at least some arousal to every video. AND their self-reporting of desire often did not match the bodily response of sexual stimulation.

So, what do we learn? That women want to fuck monkeys? (maybe) But it really suggests two things: 1. that women are not in touch with their bodies, and 2. that for women, desire is as mental as it is physical (if not more). Foreplay, for women, is the 24 hours before sex

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/ma...sire-t.html?em

----
I wonder what the rest of you think of this study, and the suggested conclusions? I feel like the emphatically psychological nature of D/s is what draws me to it. I do want to be clear that I don't understand 1 to mean that the "psychological" desire to be any less legitimate than a "physical" response.

[Carpe Coma]

There wasn't much information that was new to me. The bit about the lesbians responding the same way that the other women did, did surprise me a bit. I had always expected that their sexuality would respond much more like men. Though, that is probably largely due to a lack of personal experience.

It has been known for quite a while that women, on average, are extremely bad at identifying when they are aroused. I remember hearing about those tests nearly a decade ago.

The bits about women possibly having a much more fluid concept of attraction lends credence to the hypothesis that women treat sex more as a social lubricant/bonding tool than as a means for reproduction, along with further credence to the idea that women treat sex as more an emotional process/action than men. Rather like the saying; Men give love to get sex, women give sex to get love.

The part that I found most amusing were the struggles the various researchers were having finding ways to explain their results when it came to arousal and force fantasies in a way that was politically acceptable.

The "needing to be desired" is more difficult as that could be very easily be cultural in origin. It is one of the most consistent, omnipresent messages: that woman must be desirable to be worth anything. That aside, look at submissive fantasies. A very large percentage of them revolve around being the center of attention in one way or another. This also fits with how we perceive power on a social level; by the amount of attention we get/give.

It sounds like that they are still suffering from the probably misguided perception that there is a single sexual strategy for each gender. I wonder how their results would hold up if they used self identified submissive men and dominant women.

[Resist]

Thanks for this. Great read.

[WyldWyl]

There's a bit of a schroedinger's cat problem in this kind of study, as I'm willing to bet people's physical responses change when they're subject to 'genital monitoring' as opposed to when they're alone.

There's a wonderful essay about just this kind of testing by David C Findlay called 'Survey Said'. It's published in the book 'First Person Queer', and possibly in a few other places, it's worth looking up.

[denuseri]

Yeah hook some elctrodes up to my virginia and see if I aint aroused? lol

[DIXIE LASS]

The bits about women possibly having a much more fluid concept of attraction lends credence to the hypothesis that women treat sex more as a social lubricant/bonding tool than as a means for reproduction, along with further credence to the idea that women treat sex as more an emotional process/action than men. Rather like the saying; Men give love to get sex, women give sex to get love.

I like your conclusion here, Carpe Coma, and the last sentence makes for a great one-liner.

BuDdha, I've favored an old saying for years, "If you're not in my head, you're not in my erogenous zone." I believe that, for females especially, your post and the underlying article supports that old adage and also the one about our brains being our biggest sex organs. I enjoyed the post.

DIXIE

[DIXIE LASS]

Yeah hook some elctrodes up to my virginia and see if I aint aroused? lol

Ain't it the truth? Mine too. ROTFLMFAO.

DIXIE

[buDdha]

I'm curious that about half of the replies here agree that women aren't in touch with their bodies, and the other half emphasize the degree to which their brains are erogenous. Seems like two intentions; one in which women "fail" and the other in which we "fail" to listen to women. My same colleague said that she has been thinking that she's supposed to respond to sexual stimulus that doesn't really do anything for her. I'm surprised what strikes me suddenly; cold, hard concrete against the soles of my feet

[Carpe Coma]

...one in which women "fail" and the other in which we "fail" to listen to women. My same colleague said that she has been thinking that she's supposed to respond to sexual stimulus that doesn't really do anything for her.

This could be all the same thing from different perspectives. Let's posit for a second that the accepted cultural assumptions about what women find appealing are wrong (what ever they are). Someone growing up will be bombarded with the message that they are supposed to be attracted to "x". If the message is pervasive enough a woman could go a long time, including quite a few sexual experiences, without ever having encountered something which she was actually attracted to. She wouldn't have the proper sense of association built up to link the sensation brought around with physical arousal. Now, the average woman on this site isn't going to fit that profile as she has obviously achieved the recognition that the cultural assumption is wrong for her (else she wouldn't be going against it), which would require making the correct associations between situation and response.

End result:

Women out of touch with their sexuality: True (on average)
Female voice ignored: True (drowned out by the cultural onslaught)
Feeling like she is supposed to respond to sexual stimulus that doesn't really do anything for her: True

One elephant, three blind men trying to describe it.

[BelovedPet]

I beg to differ about women being out of touch with their bodies. For example, I know of cases where women have been sexually abused or assaulted and have had orgasms. These women were not turned on or aroused by what was happening to them, quite the opposite as I'm sure you know. But we are unable to control the response our bodies have. Just because I get wet watching monkey porn doesn't mean that I like watching it or that I feel like having sex. I think that women are complex, not out of touch, and that we are capable of having a physical response that is at complete odds with what we're feeling and experiencing in our heads.

As I think about it more, I believe that it makes sense evolutionary wise as well. Women who's vaginas got lubricated when raped would be less likely to be injured, a clear advantage.

[tessa]

Seeing as this is a subject near and dear (brain studies, not monkey sex), I'm going to venture forth and comment.

This is but one study on the workings of the female mind. Findings on this multi-faceted topic from only once source are inconclusive at best. Women's brains are so vastly different than a male's (note- I didn't say better, just different). A female's ability to process emotional stimuli functions in an entirely different way (note again- different, not better) than a male's ability. Many, many areas of a woman's brain go into gear when exposed to any information, sexual info included. And all that incoming info, for a woman with a typically functioning brain (ie. no brain injury or damage), will most definitely be handled by multiple areas in the brain, including those dealing with emotional function. And sexual feelings, again for a woman, provoke strong emotional responses.

Upon viewing the scenes presented in that study, multiple areas of the female brain, collectively even, will respond on some level. Women see the monkey scene and think, "I remember when my first true love took me to the zoo and we spent the whole day laughing and talking...then later, he bought me a beautiful red rose in front of the restaurant where he told me he loved me for the first time...and later on that night, we made sweet, sweet love." Men, on the other hand, have limited avenues, perhaps only one or two, available to respond to emotional stimuli. They see the monkey scene and think, "monkey sex does nothing for me...next please" and respond accordingly. Because of how the brain works for each gender, the ability to respond is quite different for each. Liken it to using a search engine- men type in a particular subject, and one, maybe two or three, options pop up. That's all those men have to work with. Women, however, type in the same particular subject, and 2 million options appear. A vast difference.

It's not that women are out of touch with their bodies, not at all. Rather, women are completely in touch in more varied and complex ways than are men. That's all.

[BelovedPet]

It's not that women are out of touch with their bodies, not at all. Rather, women are completely in touch in more varied and complex ways than are men. That's all.

Thank you! It really bugs me when people say women are out of touch with their bodies, it sounds so patronizing and condescending. Women aren't out of touch, but are simply not fully understood.

b

[thedominthehat]

My first thought after reading the article was, "It's confirmed, women have multiple personality syndrome. And they love baboon porn!"

[Mastrovenice]

To me one of the most interesting aspects of the article was the reference to women's bodies as the physical embodiment of sexuality (the Zumanity discussion). As we reference art history it is apparent that this has been true throughout the ages.

[denuseri]

I have often heard it said in simular discussions that a man has sex and that a woman is sex.

Licks my lips and winks.


And also btw I do so very much like to keep in "touch" with every intimat aspect of my body as well as my partners.

[Kahlann]

Oh This has to be at least whole semester psychology. Easily making this a topic to get a masters in Pysch.

Am I in touch with what actually turns me on? Probably not as much as I should be or think I am. Especially considering the more I explore different things I learn about what does and doesn't do it for me.

I've not been really aware if my brain is involved... After reading tessa's explination (which made perfect sense to me), I seem to be much more in the male state of mind regarding sex.

Am I rambiling yet? I think so... Ugh I seem to go back and forth in trying to analyse myself. This is making less sense to me.

[Mastrovenice]

Upon viewing the scenes presented in that study, multiple areas of the female brain, collectively even, will respond on some level. Women see the monkey scene and think, [I]"I remember when my first true love took me to the zoo and we spent the whole day laughing and talking...then later, he bought me a beautiful red rose in front of the restaurant where he told me he loved me for the first time...and later on that night, we made sweet, sweet love."

I liked you post very much. However, I am curious about the 'collective' function which that study was trying to map versus your explanation regarding a positive memory link. If a woman had a negative link, then the 'collective' arousal would not pan out. Or am I missing something here.

[leah06]

"Investigating the culmination of female desire, Barry Komisaruk, a neuroscientist at Rutgers University, has subjects bring themselves to orgasm while lying with their heads in an fM.R.I. scanner."

I'm sorry, this has a built-in sampling error. He thinks he's learning about female orgasm, but really he's learning about MRI sluts.

[Pearlgem]

"Investigating the culmination of female desire, Barry Komisaruk, a neuroscientist at Rutgers University, has subjects bring themselves to orgasm while lying with their heads in an fM.R.I. scanner."

I'm sorry, this has a built-in sampling error. He thinks he's learning about female orgasm, but really he's learning about MRI sluts.

What a sheltered life I lead - I had no idea they even existed! You learn something new and valuable every day...

[denuseri]

OMG the MRI sluts are comming to the bdsm library watchout!! OMG Too funny and too true Rach!!

giggles lmao while I mastubait thinking of being tied up nakie and forced to masterbait in an MRI

[steelish]

Men's bodies corresponded exactly to what they reported.

Women, on the other hand, tested very differently. They showed at least some arousal to every video. AND their self-reporting of desire often did not match the bodily response of sexual stimulation.

So, what do we learn? That women want to fuck monkeys? (maybe) But it really suggests two things: 1. that women are not in touch with their bodies, and 2. that for women, desire is as mental as it is physical (if not more). Foreplay, for women, is the 24 hours before sex

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/ma...sire-t.html?em

----
I wonder what the rest of you think of this study, and the suggested conclusions? I feel like the emphatically psychological nature of D/s is what draws me to it. I do want to be clear that I don't understand 1 to mean that the "psychological" desire to be any less legitimate than a "physical" response.

My theory is that women do not always FEEL desire even though their bodies might respond with that of sexual stimulation. Just because a woman's vagina gets moist doesn't always mean she is turned on mentally or emotionally. On the flip side, if a woman is mentally and/or emotionally aroused, I can GUARANTEE YOU that her vagina will be moist and ready to go! The mind and the body need to work together for women. For men I really don't think their head has to be in it. Well, at least not the one at the top of their necks!

Just my two cents worth...

[Losalt]

I beg to differ about women being out of touch with their bodies. For example, I know of cases where women have been sexually abused or assaulted and have had orgasms. These women were not turned on or aroused by what was happening to them, quite the opposite as I'm sure you know. But we are unable to control the response our bodies have. Just because I get wet watching monkey porn doesn't mean that I like watching it or that I feel like having sex. I think that women are complex, not out of touch, and that we are capable of having a physical response that is at complete odds with what we're feeling and experiencing in our heads.

As I think about it more, I believe that it makes sense evolutionary wise as well. Women who's vaginas got lubricated when raped would be less likely to be injured, a clear advantage.

I agree about women being complex..
But I don't like drawing the line there...
The human mind in general is rather more complex then we tend to think.
That include both males and females.
As for the clear evolutionary advantage, sure :-)
Although it would be clearer if that wasn't genes only active in one of the genders but used in both the genders.
Males would need to be ready whenever to be able to bring the genes on combined with the female need to avoid damage perhaps?
Also.. haven't there been some study showing that the female orgasm increase the lightlyhood of either getting pregnant or carrying out the child or something?

My theory is that women do not always FEEL desire even though their bodies might respond with that of sexual stimulation. Just because a woman's vagina gets moist doesn't always mean she is turned on mentally or emotionally. On the flip side, if a woman is mentally and/or emotionally aroused, I can GUARANTEE YOU that her vagina will be moist and ready to go! The mind and the body need to work together for women. For men I really don't think their head has to be in it. Well, at least not the one at the top of their necks!

Just my two cents worth...

No offense, but men can actually be raped..
Although I guess that the kind of rape that involve their own genitals isn't common, or at least it don't show on the crime statistics..
And on my part at least I get turned on more by the stories in this library then I am by porn in the form of pictures or videos..
That include the videos in the bdsm theme..

Hum...

Another thing..

We're the only primate that I'm aware of (other then dwarf chimpanzees) that don't have periods when we're in heat followed of periods with little or no interest in sex.
In the case of dwarf chimpanzees they (the females) use sex to smoothen out social problems reducing tension in the group..
Hum..
Perhaps I shouldn't write this much this late at night..
I'll have another look in here on a later date :-)