Women's Sexuality & Desire (Long Article, Worth the Read)

liah

It's probably been posted on here before but I came across this 2009 article again a few weeks ago and figured if there was discussion on it before, if I posted in any old thread on it it'd get locked so I might as well start a new one anyway.

Full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all

I'll quote some interesting and/or relevant points in this post for brevity's sake, but I do recommend reading the whole thing if you have the time.

Information on what the study involved:

[..] she showed the short movie [of bonobos having sex] 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 [...] measured their arousal in two ways, objectively and subjectively.

[..] 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.

Male/female reactions to testing:

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.

Speculation, theories, results, other studies, etc.:

[...] surveys of thousands of subjects to demonstrate over the past few years that while men with high sex drives report an even more polarized pattern of attraction than most males (to women for heterosexuals and to men for homosexuals), in women the opposite is generally true: the higher the drive, the greater the attraction to both sexes, though this may not be so for lesbians.

[...]the question, first, of why women are aroused physiologically by such a wider range of stimuli than men. Are men simply more inhibited, more constrained by the bounds of culture? Chivers has tried to eliminate this explanation by including male-to-female transsexuals as subjects in one of her series of experiments (one that showed only human sex). These trans women, both those who were heterosexual and those who were homosexual, responded genitally and subjectively in categorical ways. They responded like men. This seemed to point to an inborn system of arousal. Yet it wasn’t hard to argue that cultural lessons had taken permanent hold within these subjects long before their emergence as females could have altered the culture’s influence. “The horrible reality of psychological research,” Chivers said, “is that you can’t pull apart the cultural from the biological.”

[...] Testosterone, so vital to male libido, appears crucial to females as well [...]

[...] For the discord, in women, between the body and the mind, she has deliberated over all sorts of explanations, the simplest being anatomy. The penis is external, its reactions more readily perceived and pressing upon consciousness. Women might more likely have grown up, for reasons of both bodily architecture and culture — and here was culture again, undercutting clarity — with a dimmer awareness of the erotic messages of their genitals. Chivers said she has considered, too, research suggesting that men are better able than women to perceive increases in heart rate at moments of heightened stress and that men may rely more on such physiological signals to define their emotional states, while women depend more on situational cues. [...] this disconnection, according to yet another study she mentioned, is accentuated in women with acutely negative feelings about their own bodies.

[...] Lust, in this formulation, resides in the subjective, the cognitive; physiological arousal reveals little about desire. Otherwise, she said, half joking, “I would have to believe that women want to have sex with bonobos.”

[...] Chivers [...] has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication [...] is necessary “to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. . . . Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring.” [...] she wondered if the theory explained why heterosexual women responded genitally more to the exercising woman than to the ambling man. Possibly, she said, the exposure and tilt of the woman’s vulva during her calisthenics was processed as a sexual signal while the man’s unerect penis registered in the opposite way.

[...] From early glances at her data, Chivers said, she guesses she will find that women are most turned on, subjectively if not objectively, by scenarios of sex with strangers.

[...] The study that led to [sexologist Lisa Diamond's] book has been going on for more than 10 years. During that time, she has followed the erotic attractions of nearly 100 young women who, at the start of her work, identified themselves as either lesbian or bisexual or refused a label. From her analysis of the many shifts they made between sexual identities and from their detailed descriptions of their erotic lives, Diamond argues that for her participants, and quite possibly for women on the whole, desire is malleable, that it cannot be captured by asking women to categorize their attractions at any single point, that to do so is to apply a male paradigm of more fixed sexual orientation. Among the women in her group who called themselves lesbian, to take one bit of the evidence she assembles to back her ideas, just one-third reported attraction solely to women as her research unfolded. And with the other two-thirds, the explanation for their periodic attraction to men was not a cultural pressure to conform but rather a genuine desire. [...] she sees significance in the fact that many of her subjects agreed with the statement “I’m the kind of person who becomes physically attracted to the person rather than their gender.”

[...] desire often emerges so compellingly from emotional closeness that innate orientations can be overridden. This may not always affect women’s behavior — the overriding may not frequently impel heterosexual women into lesbian relationships — but it can redirect erotic attraction. One reason for this phenomenon, she suggests, may be found in oxytocin, a neurotransmitter unique to mammalian brains. The chemical’s release has been shown, in humans, to facilitate feelings of trust and well-being, and in female prairie voles, a monogamous species of rodent, to connect the act of sex to the formation of faithful attachments. Judging by experiments in animals, and by the transmitter’s importance in human childbirth and breast feeding, the oxytocin system, which relies on estrogen, is much more extensive in the female brain.


[...] Meana explained the gender imbalance onstage [at Cirque du Soleil's "Zumanity," a very softcore porn show] in a way that complemented Chivers’s thinking. “The female body,” she said, “looks the same whether aroused or not. The male, without an erection, is announcing a lack of arousal. The female body always holds the promise, the suggestion of sex” — a suggestion that sends a charge through both men and women. And there was another way, Meana argued, by which the Cirque du Soleil’s offering of more female than male acrobats helped to rivet both genders in the crowd. She [...] emphasized the role of being desired — and of narcissism — in women’s desiring.
The critical part played by being desired [...] is an emerging theme in the current study of female sexuality. Three or four decades ago, with the sense of sexual independence brought by the birth-control pill and the women’s liberation movement, she said, the predominant cultural and sexological assumption was that female lust was fueled from within, that it didn’t depend on another’s initiation. One reason for the shift in perspective, she speculated, is a depth of insight gathered, in recent times, through a booming of qualitative research in sexology, an embrace of analyses built on personal, detailed interviews or on clinical experience, an approach that has gained attention as a way to counter the field’s infatuation with statistical surveys and laboratory measurements.

Meana made clear [...] that she was speaking in general terms, that, when it comes to desire, “the variability within genders may be greater than the differences between genders,” that lust is infinitely complex and idiosyncratic. [...] For women, “being desired is the orgasm,” Meana said somewhat metaphorically [...]

[...] Wearing goggles that track eye movement, her subjects looked at pictures of heterosexual foreplay. The men stared far more at the females, their faces and bodies, than at the males. The women gazed equally at the two genders, their eyes drawn to the faces of the men and to the bodies of the women — to the facial expressions, perhaps, of men in states of wanting, and to the sexual allure embodied in the female figures.

[...] The generally accepted therapeutic notion that, for women, incubating intimacy leads to better sex is [...] often misguided. “Really,” she said, “women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” — it is dominated by the yearnings of “self-love,” by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. “When it comes to desire,” she added, “women may be far less relational than men.” [...] For evolutionary and cultural reasons, she said, women might set a high value on the closeness and longevity of relationships: “But it’s wrong to think that because relationships are what women choose they’re the primary source of women’s desire.”

Meana spoke about two elements that contribute to her thinking: first, a great deal of data showing that, as measured by the frequency of fantasy, masturbation and sexual activity, women have a lower sex drive than men, and second, research suggesting that within long-term relationships, women are more likely than men to lose interest in sex. Meana posits that it takes a greater jolt, a more significant stimulus, to switch on a woman’s libido than a man’s. “If I don’t love cake as much as you,” she told me, “my cake better be kick-butt to get me excited to eat it.” And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out. [...] “Women want to be thrown up against a wall but not truly endangered. Women want a caveman and caring [...]"

[...] between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such ["rape"] fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.
The appeal is, above all, paradoxical, Meana pointed out: rape means having no control, while fantasy is a domain manipulated by the self. "[...] they’re really fantasies of submission.” She spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take. “But ‘aggression,’ ‘dominance,’ I have to find better words. ‘Submission’ isn’t even a good word” — it didn’t reflect the woman’s imagining of an ultimately willing surrender.

Right. So that's the basic points, albeit a bit messy. Again, read the whole thing if you have the time for clearer context.

Any thoughts? I'll reply with my thoughts on this later, just wanted to get it out and see what people took away from it.

Wibbs

Yea that was one of the studies I was looking to link to in one of my posts in the "porn" thread. This daft notion that women aren't visually stimulated falls apart for a start.

It's interesting stuff. As much for what it may reveal of our evolutionary sexual history and the diffs between genders that came outa that.

baby and crumble

yeah I read this article ages ago and wanted to find it again to link to various threads that have popped up recently... thanks liah!

Earthhorse

Interesting article. Hard to come to any real conclusions on it; for every piece of evidence for one thing they seem to have another for the opposite.

Also, a few things in there that are "politically incorrect"; it's okay for an article in the New York Times to discuss them but if you brought them up in a conversation with friends you'd be rounded upon.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

Interesting article. Hard to come to any real conclusions on it; for every piece of evidence for one thing they seem to have another for the opposite.

Also, a few things in there that are "politically incorrect"; it's okay for an article in the New York Times to discuss them but if you brought them up in a conversation with friends you'd be rounded upon.

I don't think so, I thoroughly discussed the article with my (male) roommate a week or two ago.

I don't think any of what's in the article would get you rounded upon unless you grossly misrepresented the content or tried to use it to excuse something inexcusable (e.g. the rape fantasy). Which parts are you referring to?

Adrian009

Makes me laugh because its so true! Guys are guys, and girls are girls!

I would agree that woman's sexual response is more mallable; I've know girls who loved watching gay male porn, which incredibly does nothing for me! Other classified themselves as straight but had 'incidents' with other girls. And I know of cases where the hardest of hardcore lesbians shack up with a man, have children, and live happily ever after!

The secret is this:

Guys are sexual.

Girls are sensual.

Because women are so highly sensual, their sexual outlook is much broader and deeper than us blokes.

Basicly it boils down to the fact that girls are naughty - live with it!:D

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

I don't think so, I thoroughly discussed the article with my (male) roommate a week or two ago.

I don't think any of what's in the article would get you rounded upon unless you grossly misrepresented the content or tried to use it to excuse something inexcusable (e.g. the rape fantasy). Which parts are you referring to?

Two things spring to mind:

Meana spoke about two elements that contribute to her thinking: first, a great deal of data showing that, as measured by the frequency of fantasy, masturbation and sexual activity, women have a lower sex drive than men, and second, research suggesting that within long-term relationships, women are more likely than men to lose interest in sex.

But if you ever propose the idea that men are "more interested" in sex than women you'll be told you're living in the 1950s and must never have met a woman in your life. Of course there's a winder context to this and I'm not suggesting women aren't interested in sex by any means but honestly, try basically repeating that in conversation and see how quickly people will correct you.

And there was another way, Meana argued, by which the Cirque du Soleil’s offering of more female than male acrobats helped to rivet both genders in the crowd. She, even more than Chivers, emphasized the role of being desired — and of narcissism — in women’s desiring.

Again, I think if you were to suggest there's an element of narcissism in women's desiring you'd be told it just weren't so.

Bear in mind: I am not talking about having a discussion about the article itself, where people will be more inclined to take on the findings. I'm suggesting in a conversation with friends about men and women's desires, if you proposed the above ideas they'd be rejected out of hand.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

But if you ever propose the idea that men are "more interested" in sex than women you'll be told you're living in the 1950s and must never have met a woman in your life. Of course there's a winder context to this and I'm not suggesting women aren't interested in sex by any means but honestly, try basically repeating that in conversation and see how quickly people will correct you.

That's quite simple - when you're talking to your friends, generalizations don't apply; the stat is a generalization and doesn't apply to each individual. So, when dealing with individuals, they're probably right in telling you you're wrong if you say it, because in their experience they may have always had a higher sex drive (like me). Stuff like that only applies as a very broad generalization and typically doesn't have much place when you're talking about individual people.

Again, I think if you were to suggest there's an element of narcissism in women's desiring you'd be told it just weren't so.

Bear in mind: I am not talking about having a discussion about the article itself, where people will be more inclined to take on the findings. I'm suggesting in a conversation with friends about men and women's desires, if you proposed the above ideas they'd be rejected out of hand.

I also think any objection to the narcissism point may be down to the fact that they may genuinely not recognize it in themselves, or again, on an individual scale stuff like that doesn't really apply. It took me reading the article to admit that yeah, I suppose it is true - explains a hell of a lot, anyway. But before the article I would've said (and meant) that I'm all about pleasing a partner - which I am, but I'd be lying if I said a huge part of me being turned on isn't the prospect of how much my partner wants me.

I don't like how it sounds and I don't like that holds true for me, but it is what it is.

That's the problem with discussing things like this - too many people take it as "oh, so this means I've been right all along about x, x, and x and women really are x, x and x," and use it to justify any amount of ignorance while forgetting that these stats really don't matter a tick on an individual basis. So while the people who rebuke you may know what you're saying is true, they may not want it to get out of hand. If that makes sense?

It totally depends how you present the information and why.

yawha

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.

Doesn't seem like very sound methodology to me. Like, the plethysmograph for the penis measures swelling physically, and the vaginal one uses light bouncing. How accurate are both methods? Is there a scale used that can accurately compare penile and vaginal arousal?

In fact I just googled it, and found this on vaginal plethysmographs:

However, there are many problems with the instrument including (1) lack of validation of its direct relationship with vasocongestion, (2) lack of an absolute scale precluding between-participant comparisons in research, and (3) its perceived invasiveness by some research participants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_photoplethysmography

PK2008

So men have higher sex drives than women, and women get off on being objects of desire?

Not exactly groundbreaking stuff............

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

That's quite simple - when you're talking to your friends, generalizations don't apply; the stat is a generalization and doesn't apply to each individual. So, when dealing with individuals, they're probably right in telling you you're wrong if you say it, because in their experience they may have always had a higher sex drive (like me). Stuff like that only applies as a very broad generalization and typically doesn't have much place when you're talking about individual people.

How are they right in telling me I'm wrong about a generalisation if that generalisation is backed up scientifically? No one's trying to tell anyone, and certainly I wouldn't, that because something is true generally then it must be true for them specifically. Besides, I'm not talking about individual people, I'm talking to individual people about the genders and how they are different or the same.

That's the problem with discussing things like this - too many people take it as "oh, so this means I've been right all along about x, x, and x and women really are x, x and x," and use it to justify any amount of ignorance while forgetting that these stats really don't matter a tick on an individual basis. So while the people who rebuke you may know what you're saying is true, they may not want it to get out of hand. If that makes sense?

It totally depends how you present the information and why.

It makes sense of course. The problem is that even when I present the information as accurately and objectively as I can, and even when I make qualifications that it doesn't apply to any or all individuals, the interesting points raised by such research are dismissed simply because the person doesn't want to accept it.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

How are they right in telling me I'm wrong about a generalisation if that generalisation is backed up scientifically? No one's trying to tell anyone, and certainly I wouldn't, that because something is true generally then it must be true for them specifically. Besides, I'm not talking about individual people, I'm talking to individual people about the genders and how they are different or the same.

I never said they were right, I'm just explaining why you'd be met with a harsh reaction if you just brought it up with mates and not on an actual discussion forum where things like this are to be expected. Even if you're not making direct reference for them, it's only natural to recoil a bit and take it personally when you hear something like "men are" or "women are" and you know you don't live up to it - why else do you think there's so many freakouts about generalizations on here all the time?

You would have to give me the context in which you used it for me to explain why people would get uppity about it. But generally people will give out if it's poor timing, not so much if you're after watching/reading the same thing.

It makes sense of course. The problem is that even when I present the information as accurately and objectively as I can, and even when I make qualifications that it doesn't apply to any or all individuals, the interesting points raised by such research are dismissed simply because the person doesn't want to accept it.

People do that with everything though, not just gender. Part and parcel of existing in society I suppose.

I object to scientific data being used to generalize once in awhile, but it depends entirely on the context and who's saying what and what direction they're taking it. Most people don't understand how to interpret statistics and will hear a stat and start bandying it about the place and with stuff like this, that sometimes doesn't end so well.

So basically, part of it is people being genuinely ignorant and not wanting to accept stuff they don't want to believe, and the other part is people who understand that a lot of people are ignorant and don't want to discuss that kind of thing with the wrong kind of person.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

I never said they were right, I'm just explaining why you'd be met with a harsh reaction if you just brought it up with mates and not on an actual discussion forum where things like this are to be expected.

If things like this are to be expected on discussion forum then why are there so many freakouts about generalisations on here all the time?

Even if you're not making direct reference for them, it's only natural to recoil a bit and take it personally when you hear something like "men are" or "women are" and you know you don't live up to it - why else do you think there's so many freakouts about generalizations on here all the time?

I think it's because people lack the ability to separate their identity from their identifying features (sex, race, occupation).

You would have to give me the context in which you used it for me to explain why people would get uppity about it. But generally people will give out if it's poor timing, not so much if you're after watching/reading the same thing.

Your assumption is that it must have been the way I presented it that caused the reaction and not something in the listener. I don't need you to explain why people get uppity about it; a good deal of the time it's their inability to hear what someone is saying and instead focus on what they think the person might be saying.

So basically, part of it is people being genuinely ignorant and not wanting to accept stuff they don't want to believe, and the other part is people who understand that a lot of people are ignorant and don't want to discuss that kind of thing with the wrong kind of person.

I would hope my friends already know I'm not an ignorant person and they aren't ignorant which leaves them not wanting to accept stuff they don't want to believe. In particular, as I said above, they don't want to believe about themselves (and it probably isn't true about themselves) but they worry it might be if it's true for in general for people, or their nationality, or their gender, so it's easier for them to just dismiss the whole idea as nonsense that couldn't be true.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

If things like this are to be expected on discussion forum then why are there so many freakouts about generalisations on here all the time?

Depends on the context! :pac:

Sometimes I give out about generalizations. Sometimes I make them. Sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's not. But it's easier to dismiss text generalizations from some randomer than in-person ones from someone you know.

I think it's because people lack the ability to separate their identity from their identifying features (sex, race, occupation).

Also the whole "I'm a unique little snowflake" thing where people just hate the idea that they're like everyone else. Think everyone's like that once in awhile though. My generation in particular was raised on the "you're all so very special!" crap.

Your assumption is that it must have been the way I presented it that caused the reaction and not something in the listener. I don't need you to explain why people get uppity about it; a good deal of the time it's their inability to hear what someone is saying and instead focus on what they think the person might be saying.

It wasn't an assumption, I was just curious as to the context and giving possible reasons and that it wasn't always the case. Again, I didn't say that WAS the reason. It's just, generally if I bring things up the right way I don't get rounded on, but if I'm careless (which happens a lot) people get miffed. Figured it might be the same for you, that's all.

It's just a bit interesting that they'd outright reject it if was relevant to the topic of conversation and posed in an innocent enough manner. People looking to get offended, I'd wager.

I would hope my friends already know I'm not an ignorant person and they aren't ignorant which leaves them not wanting to accept stuff they don't want to believe. In particular, as I said above, they don't want to believe about themselves (and it probably isn't true about themselves) but they worry it might be if it's true for in general for people, or their nationality, or their gender, so it's easier for them to just dismiss the whole idea as nonsense that couldn't be true.

Which, in some ways, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just because something's scientifically accurate doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to go around telling everyone; sure, you still get idiots who harp on about the "women have smaller brains therefore are dumber" argument because of things like this. I mean, rarely, but still. I always feel a bit funny posting stuff like this.

But I don't know. I don't encounter many people like that - I can discuss anything with my friends and know nobody will get offended so long as I can back up what I'm saying. Most people I encounter are reasonable so long as you're willing to put your money where your mouth is when you make an assertion. General/ollective 'you,' not trying to be personal at all.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

It wasn't an assumption, I was just curious as to the context and giving possible reasons and that it wasn't always the case. Again, I didn't say that WAS the reason. It's just, generally if I bring things up the right way I don't get rounded on, but if I'm careless (which happens a lot) people get miffed. Figured it might be the same for you, that's all.

Yeah, fair enough. However, I'm perfect and never present information in a poor way. :cool:

In all seriousness, I would not be able to accurately relate the incidents to you, you'd have to be there.

It's just a bit interesting that they'd outright reject it if was relevant to the topic of conversation and posed in an innocent enough manner. People looking to get offended, I'd wager.

Well, not so much offended as afraid they might be wrong about something, but it's the same end result.

Which, in some ways, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just because something's scientifically accurate doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to go around telling everyone; sure, you still get idiots who harp on about the "women have smaller brains therefore are dumber" argument because of things like this. I mean, rarely, but still. I always feel a bit funny posting stuff like this.

I understand where you're coming from but idiots will be idiots no matter how much or little information you present to them!

But I don't know. I don't encounter many people like that - I can discuss anything with my friends and know nobody will get offended so long as I can back up what I'm saying.

I can discuss anything with my friends but there are certain ideas that I find are universally panned by groups of people (not by everyone but by a significant majority) regardless of how much evidence you have to back them up.

Wibbs

article wrote:

women are most turned on, subjectively if not objectively, by scenarios of sex with strangers.

Makes sense. The woman gets to be exposed to greater spread of DNA. Though I'd say sex with strangers figures as highly if not moreso among men just from a different angle. Harems figured in male sexual fantasies for many a year.

“The female body,” she said, “looks the same whether aroused or not. The male, without an erection, is announcing a lack of arousal. The female body always holds the promise, the suggestion of sex”

For me this part is a bit of a stretch. I see the argument that women hide their fertility alright which may have evolved to keep men interested for long enough to wean any kids, but the "promise of sex"? I'd say the flaccid male member also holds as much promise.

Depends on ones own interpretation too. IE

The women gazed equally at the two genders, their eyes drawn to the faces of the men and to the bodies of the women — to the facial expressions, perhaps, of men in states of wanting, and to the sexual allure embodied in the female figures.

...or checking the men's emotional states as women have more to lose from an aggressive/sexually predatory male. Watch how fast the vibe spreads in a group if one woman reckons a guy is acting "creepy". And checking out other women's bodies could also be doing that social comparison and competition thing women do more than men.

women might set a high value on the closeness and longevity of relationships: “But it’s wrong to think that because relationships are what women choose they’re the primary source of women’s desire.”

I'd agree with this for a fair few women. My personal experience anyway. And that goes beyond the sexual.

I'd also add that women more than men tend to make up "perfect partners" out of more than one person. Their emotional, sexual, social and ego needs can be wrapped up in one person, but IME for a fair few out there they spread that load around.

EG and a stereotypical extreme - though not so extreme as I can think of two examples from the top of my head - Woman has long term boyfriend(social proof and future bet), lover (sexual desire), gay male mate(man's opinion without the sexual issue and woman's opinion without the competition), the unrequited sap(s) who she knows love her, but they're her "friends"(social proof and ego massage), potential new boyfriend/safety net (guy she'll jump to when she finds she loves but is not in love with current bloke). Women can be a lot more complex in this stuff than men. A lot more.

liah

I think (and this is only from my experience) that women in general tend to be more emotionally/socially/sexually complex than men; it's a fairly standard stereotype, e.g. every sitcom/romcom ever - the man does/says something dumb without thinking and the woman lectures him on why it's wrong and reads much deeper into it than the man; when they discuss their problems with their mates the men tend to go to the 'face value' conclusions while women tend to read deeply into every detail. My own relationships reflect this, though may result in bias due to my partners being in the 17-21 year old range when I was with them, but a lot of the time the guy would do/say something completely awful/stupid, completely innocently, and I would have to explain what exactly the problem was. This still happens with my close male friends who are older than me (25 and 28).

Obviously, like any stereotype, it's not true in all cases.. but there's a nugget of truth in there, I think. Deep discussions with close male mates have given this a bit firmer ground in my mind as they've expanded on it and largely agree.

This isn't to say men aren't complex; certainly, they are, just imo in very different ways (e.g. they tend to get more deeply involved with their passions in life, sports for example, or computers, and tend to be better at critical thinking). When it comes to human interaction, though, women typically have a higher EQ. Possibly because by default we have a deeper empathy (predisposition due to being child bearers/carers); again, not true in every case and men can be just as empathetic, but true more often than not.

Logical Fallacy

Wibbs wrote: »

Makes sense. The woman gets to be exposed to greater spread of DNA. Though I'd say sex with strangers figures as highly if not moreso among men just from a different angle. Harems figured in male sexual fantasies for many a year.

Hmmmmmm.....not often i go head to head with The Wibber in a disarrangement on something but **** it, should be fun.

Basically i am going to dispute the "greater spread of DNA" ideal. Now, i understand where people come from this, sex is the method of procreation, females get pregnant, ergo sex is a procreation tool for females. However, i believe this model applies far more easily to animals that lack advanced consciousness, social reasoning and emotional responses. That is to say, i believe that works fine for animals who we can effectively argue are driven by the endless need to ensure survival of the species.

As a species though we have developed beyond that in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying it doesn't play any part in The Stranger fantasty but i believe it plays much less of a part than the simple fact that a Stranger is basically a phantom, you can apply whatever kind personality, sexual preferences and physical endowments you like on to them. As such, yeah...they become the perfect lover because people tend to simply apply their physical attributes to there subconsciously developed "perfect lover". I reckon it has far more to do with that than the DNA thing at this point in human development.

parker kent

Is there not a theory that women can have multiple orgasms because early humans engaged in group sex? In other words many men had sex with the same woman. Women by and large, have the capability to have more orgasms than men. So the stranger theory referred to above, could be related to that.

I'll have a look and see if I can find anything to back up my post!

parker kent

Looked up the Dan Savage column I originally read that theory in, and it comes from the book Sex at Dawn. Dan was answering one his usual agony uncle questions about a sexual dilemma. It also partly explains male desire to see other people having sex.

Full column available at: http://www.avclub.com/articles/july-7-2010,42846/

“Think about it,” says Ryan. “Why would women have evolved the capacity for slow-building multiple orgasms while males evolved the orgasmic response of minutemen accompanied by a sudden disappearance of all interest in sex?”

Because—as Ryan and coauthor Cacilda Jethá lay out in Sex At Dawn—for countless generations, our male and female ancestors, like our closest primate relatives (****-mad bonobos), engaged in multi-partner sex. Females mated with multiple males, while males—so easily stimulated visually to this day—watched and waited their turn.

“Almost all of us get off on watching other people having sex,” says Ryan. “Even if our minds deny it, our bodies respond in many ways, ranging from increased genital blood flow (in both sexes) to stronger male ejaculations.”
By inviting another male into your bedroom, SECONDS, your husband—consciously or subconsciously—is inducing what’s known as “sperm competition.” Watching you have sex with another male made him more excited to have sex with you, not with the other male, and treated him to a more intense orgasm in you, not in the other male.

“So your husband’s experience was very heterosexual,” says Ryan.
I’ll go further: Your husband’s experience was the original heterosexual experience.

Scanlas The 2nd

I've been saying for years that one of the best things you can say to a woman to turn her on is "stop doing that (referring to anything she is doing that might be deemed a turn on), you are turning me on way too much" and then push her a way a little.

I think this is also evidence that you shouldn't really bother asking women what turns them because you either won't get an honest answer or they don't actually know themselves what turns them on. The best way of figuring out what turns them on is to look at their actions and not their words.

Links234

Interesting article,

one bit piqued my interest:

Chivers has tried to eliminate this explanation by including male-to-female transsexuals as subjects in one of her series of experiments (one that showed only human sex). These trans women, both those who were heterosexual and those who were homosexual, responded genitally and subjectively in categorical ways. They responded like men. This seemed to point to an inborn system of arousal. Yet it wasn’t hard to argue that cultural lessons had taken permanent hold within these subjects long before their emergence as females could have altered the culture’s influence. “The horrible reality of psychological research,” Chivers said, “is that you can’t pull apart the cultural from the biological.”

I'd love to know some more details about this, because I'm wondering all kinds of things, like are we talking pre-/non- or post-op, or pre- or post HRT trans women here, and how did they measure their response? I'm assuming that when they say that they responded genitally like men, we're talking about trans women who are pre-op or non-op, and measured their response in the same way as men? if so, then we're probably talking about trans women who haven't yet started hormone treatment, because most women will lose the ability to achieve an erection after having been on HRT a while (those girls you might see in porn will take viagra, or even stop HRT, in order to perform). so they may have had testosterone levels typical of males, hence their response? I'm speculating of course, but from first-hand experience, hormones make a gigantic difference in the way you experience arousal and can't help but think that plays a big factor here.

Red Hand

Wibbs wrote: »

EG and a stereotypical extreme - though not so extreme as I can think of two examples from the top of my head - Woman has long term boyfriend(social proof and future bet), lover (sexual desire), gay male mate(man's opinion without the sexual issue and woman's opinion without the competition), the unrequited sap(s) who she knows love her, but they're her "friends"(social proof and ego massage), potential new boyfriend/safety net (guy she'll jump to when she finds she loves but is not in love with current bloke). Women can be a lot more complex in this stuff than men. A lot more.

This is an example that you say is an extreme, but presumably elements of this can be seen with many attractive women? So, what is the point in getting into a relationship with an attractive woman if there are potential new b/f safety nets and unrequited saps swarming about all the time? It kind of makes it pointless? As if you are a temporary thing...

Like...why bother?:pac:

metrovelvet

liah wrote: »

I think (and this is only from my experience) that women in general tend to be more emotionally/socially/sexually complex than men; it's a fairly standard stereotype, e.g. every sitcom/romcom ever - the man does/says something dumb without thinking and the woman lectures him on why it's wrong and reads much deeper into it than the man; when they discuss their problems with their mates the men tend to go to the 'face value' conclusions while women tend to read deeply into every detail. My own relationships reflect this, though may result in bias due to my partners being in the 17-21 year old range when I was with them, but a lot of the time the guy would do/say something completely awful/stupid, completely innocently, and I would have to explain what exactly the problem was. This still happens with my close male friends who are older than me (25 and 28).

Obviously, like any stereotype, it's not true in all cases.. but there's a nugget of truth in there, I think. Deep discussions with close male mates have given this a bit firmer ground in my mind as they've expanded on it and largely agree.

This isn't to say men aren't complex; certainly, they are, just imo in very different ways (e.g. they tend to get more deeply involved with their passions in life, sports for example, or computers, and tend to be better at critical thinking). When it comes to human interaction, though, women typically have a higher EQ. Possibly because by default we have a deeper empathy (predisposition due to being child bearers/carers); again, not true in every case and men can be just as empathetic, but true more often than not.

You might find it interesting they have linked testosterone levels with lack of empathy. Thats not to say knowing this must lead one down a path of biological determinist, but it's interesting nonetheless and perhaps suggest we should adjust our expectations.

"One of Baron-Cohen's longitudinal studies – which began 10 years a – found that the more testosterone a foetus generates in the womb, the less empathy the child will have post- natally. In other words, there is a negative correlation between testosterone and empathy. It would appear the sex hormone is somehow involved in shaping the "empathy circuits" of the developing brain.

Given that testosterone is found in higher quantities in men than women, it may come as no surprise that men score lower on empathy than women. So there is a clear hormonal link to empathy. Another biological factor is genetics. Recent research by Baron-Cohen and colleagues found four genes associated with empathy – one sex steroid gene, one gene related to social-emotional behaviour and two associated with neural growth. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-a-lack-of-empathy-is-the-root-of-all-evil-2262371.html

liah

metrovelvet wrote: »

You might find it interesting they have linked testosterone levels with lack of empathy. Thats not to say knowing this must lead one down a path of biological determinist, but it's interesting nonetheless and perhaps suggest we should adjust our expectations.

"One of Baron-Cohen's longitudinal studies – which began 10 years a – found that the more testosterone a foetus generates in the womb, the less empathy the child will have post- natally. In other words, there is a negative correlation between testosterone and empathy. It would appear the sex hormone is somehow involved in shaping the "empathy circuits" of the developing brain.

Given that testosterone is found in higher quantities in men than women, it may come as no surprise that men score lower on empathy than women. So there is a clear hormonal link to empathy. Another biological factor is genetics. Recent research by Baron-Cohen and colleagues found four genes associated with empathy – one sex steroid gene, one gene related to social-emotional behaviour and two associated with neural growth. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-a-lack-of-empathy-is-the-root-of-all-evil-2262371.html

Don't suppose there's links online for the actual study rather than the article? I noticed a comment about a book at the bottom but I can't be arsed paying twenty pounds plus post to read a study.. Either way, it sounds incredibly interesting, and similar to what I'd more or less thought all along. Still well open to being proven wrong though.

You even can tell from a lot of debates here in tLL though tbh. I won't go into it, but I imagine that if you're around here enough, you know exactly what I'm referring to..

Wibbs

Yes but one can learn empathy, or a damn good approximation of it. Or indeed unlearn it. Plus we're not just the products of our hormones, or at least such hormones can affect people differently. IE young bald men don't have excess testosterone(often have less), just their hair follicles are sensitive to it. I've a condition that meant increased testosterone production, yet have no muscle to speak of, aren't particularly aggressive, didnt have a chest hair til I was 30 and my beard grows slooooow. So I suspect it has an effect L/MV, but not as big an effect, or one has to look at co factors a lot more.

liah

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes but one can learn empathy, or a damn good approximation of it. Or indeed unlearn it. Plus we're not just the products of our hormones, or at least such hormones can affect people differently. IE young bald men don't have excess testosterone(often have less), just their hair follicles are sensitive to it. I've a condition that meant increased testosterone production, yet have no muscle to speak of, aren't particularly aggressive, didnt have a chest hair til I was 30 and my beard grows slooooow. So I suspect it has an effect L/MV, but not as big an effect, or one has to look at co factors a lot more.

Very true, yeah. But, as a female, I find myself at the mercy of my hormones more than I'd like to admit, as a usually relatively rational, logical and level-headed person. But every month, my hormones kick in just to remind me that even though I think I'm in control, I'm really, really not. It's absolutely infuriating to not be able to control or predict how you think or feel.

I think hormones play a greater role in things than a lot of people want to admit.

parker kent

liah wrote: »

Very true, yeah. But, as a female, I find myself at the mercy of my hormones more than I'd like to admit, as a usually relatively rational, logical and level-headed person. But every month, my hormones kick in just to remind me that even though I think I'm in control, I'm really, really not. It's absolutely infuriating to not be able to control or predict how you think or feel.

I think hormones play a greater role in things than a lot of people want to admit.

+1 As much as I say men and women are the same, I would agree with you there. I think both men and women can have what could be described as "male" or "female" brains (think I lean towards the empathy/feeling side which I'd describe as a female brain) , but I've seen perfectly rational women turn into balls of irrationality one week out of four. I've one friend and I just know when it's her period. Her rationality function goes on the blink.

parker kent

On a related note, I bookmarked the EQ test devised by Baron-Cohen when it was in The Guardian. It is worth a look.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,,937443,00.html

He wrote an article in The Observer a few weeks ago about the whole subject of empathy. I found it pretty interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/27/the-science-of-empathy

And Liah, here are a few links to Simon Baron-Cohen's studies.

Autism: The Empathizing–Systemizing (E-S) Theory
http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2009_BC_nyas.pdf

Autism, hypersystemizing, and truth http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2008_BC_JEP_Autism_hypersystemizing_and_truth.pdf

If you have access to any University Library accounts, you'll be able to get full access to the Human Sex Differences paper here.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j728x34480112869/

His wikipedia page has all his research as well!

I'm such a nerd

liah

parker kent wrote: »

+1 As much as I say men and women are the same, I would agree with you there. I think both men and women can have what could be described as "male" or "female" brains (think I lean towards the empathy/feeling side which I'd describe as a female brain) , but I've seen perfectly rational women turn into balls of irrationality one week out of four. I've one friend and I just know when it's her period. Her rationality function goes on the blink.

Talking to transgenders has really solidified this one for me. I do believe there are genuine differences in how our biology make us work. If you read the posts of the m-t-f transgenders on boards, it 'reads' like women. They think like women, even if they haven't touched HRT yet. They just have female brains, exact same as I do, and I think they are a brilliant example of the fact that, as much as we don't wanna say it, there are at least some genuine differences. If there weren't, why would they ever realize they're in the wrong body? Why would transgenderism exist at all? Why would they need the HRT (e.g. the hormone estrogen) to feel right in their own bodies if 'male' and 'female' brains were exactly alike?

That said, I do believe everyone is individual and I believe no one should have to live up to defined gender roles. While biologically some things are generally true, we're far, far, far past the point of our biology defining everything about who we are and what we do. Nobody should ever be limited in anything they want to do just because of their sex. Everyone has different levels of each hormone in their system; very few people are fully dominated by one or the other and therefore using blanket statements is pretty useless in real life.

It's why I feel a bit funny acknowledging genuine gender differences - so many people will alight onto anything and misuse the information to negatively generalize and/or abuse.

parker kent

liah wrote: »

That said, I do believe everyone is individual and I believe no one should have to live up to defined gender roles. While biologically some things are generally true, we're far, far, far past the point of our biology defining everything about who we are and what we do. Nobody should ever be limited in anything they want to do just because of their sex. Everyone has different levels of each hormone in their system; very few people are fully dominated by one or the other and therefore using blanket statements is pretty useless in real life.

It's why I feel a bit funny acknowledging genuine gender differences - so many people will alight onto anything and misuse the information to negatively generalize and/or abuse.

Yeah it is a little bit contradictory but true. There are differences, but it all differs in the individual. I just think certain traits happen more often in men and women and that leads to stereotypes. That being said, I would argue strongly that social norms play a major role as well. I think you can socialise children into following certain gender norms.

I found an interesting article a few minutes ago called "Who Are Tomboys and Why Should We Study Them?". It's abstract says:

This study was designed to investigate accounts of tomboyism cessation and continuation in adolescence in the narratives of a small sample of adult, working and lower-middle class, New Jersey-area lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women who identified as childhood tomboys. Study participants discussed several reasons for ceasing and continuing tomboyism in adolescence, including maturation, heterosexual interests, parental and peer pressures, athletic participation, and sexual desires for girls or women. Several participants questioned the tomboy label by highlighting discrepancies between behavior and identification. Women’s relationships to the varied gendered meanings referenced in the “tomboy” label, the salience of women’s adult sexualities in their narratives of gender in adolescence, and the dangers for scholars of presuming conformity and heterosexuality are discussed.

Yahew

I think everybody reads this survey wrong. Male physical arrousal signifies psychological arousal ( and men are aware of it). Female arousal doesn't necessarily. This the the important sentence:

Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death

If these women were shown real depictions of rape they would have lubricated too. That doesn't mean they weren't disgusted. Actually disgusted. Not faking disgust, with real underlying desire but actually disgusted.

An erection is real desire, lubrication is just a defence mechanism.

iIn short you can tell nothing about the female makeup, or desire from the lubrication of the vagina.

parker kent

Yahew wrote: »

I think everybody reads this survey wrong. Male physical arrousal signifies psychological arousal ( and men are aware of it). Female arousal doesn't necessarily. This the the important sentence:

If these women were shown real depictions of rape they would have lubricated too. That doesn't mean they weren't disgusted. Actually disgusted. Not faking disgust, with real underlying desire but actually disgusted.

An erection is real desire, lubrication is just a defence mechanism.

iIn short you can tell nothing about the female makeup, or desire from the lubrication of the pussy.

I don't agree an erection is always a sign of real desire, it can be a natural physical reaction. I view it as similar to lubrication, sometimes it is a sign of desire and sometimes it is not a sign of desire.

Desire, arousal and orgasm don't always need to be connected. For example, both male and female rape victims have had orgasms during the assault, which causes untold mental issues.

Logical Fallacy

Yahew wrote: »

An erection is real desire

I would disagree with that. Definitely think it's an over simplistic look at male physiology.

Yahew

parker kent wrote: »

I don't agree an erection is always a sign of real desire, it can be a natural physical reaction. I view it as similar to lubrication, sometimes it is a sign of desire and sometimes it is not a sign of desire.

Desire, arousal and orgasm don't always need to be connected. For example, both male and female rape victims have had orgasms during the assault, which causes untold mental issues.

Clearly though homosexual activity had no effect on heterosexual men. Women are lubricating on any sexual activity as the body is getting into defence mode. Men are not getting erect universally. Therefore the erection tells us more than lubrication.

liah

parker kent wrote: »

Yeah it is a little bit contradictory but true. There are differences, but it all differs in the individual. I just think certain traits happen more often in men and women and that leads to stereotypes. That being said, I would argue strongly that social norms play a major role as well. I think you can socialise children into following certain gender norms.

I found an interesting article a few minutes ago called "Who Are Tomboys and Why Should We Study Them?". It's abstract says:

I was a hell of a tomboy when I was a kid. Always around farms, catching frogs and snakes, exploring and having mad adventures, playing with dinosaur figurines instead of Barbies, playing videogames, etc. It's funny, I didn't really have much of a reason to be, I don't think. I was an only child and my mother just let me be as I was - she did try and put me into dresses every so often but she didn't exactly force me. It's only in my 20s that I've gotten into more stereotypically girly things, e.g. feminine clothes, wearing makeup, 'aww'ing at babies, etc.

I think as a teen I tried to explain it away by rebellion, but I was just kind of always like that.

I also identify as pan/bi (straight leaning though).

Have you a link to the full article?

Yahew

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I would disagree with that. Definitely think it's an over simplistic look at male physiology.

The OP's report had no effect on you then? Men reacted in category specific ways, and women to everything?

parker kent

Yahew wrote: »

Clearly though homosexual activity had no effect on heterosexual men. Women are lubricating on any sexual activity as the body is getting into defence mode. Men are not getting erect universally. Therefore the erection tells us more than lubrication.

In real life (i.e not in the research, which is looking at a very specific form of arousal), men will react to touch. Heterosexual men can and do get erections due to other men for a variety of reasons. Hence the taboo many men have of other men touching them. Men get erections at doctors, massage etc. It happens.

Plus as I said earlier, straight men can and do get erections in sexual assaults.

Logical Fallacy

Yahew wrote: »

The OP's report had no effect on you then? Men reacted in category specific ways, and women to everything?

I'm disagreeing more from the point that you seem to be implying that erection = desire, no erection = no desire.

I've been incredible turned on but kept myself at flag down position through self control. I haven't been even remotely turned on but found my body reacting to things that we happening such as contact etc.

Basically if that's not what you mean then i'm not disagreeing with you, just misunderstanding what you are saying.

parker kent

liah wrote: »

Have you a link to the full article?

I got to the article through my UCD account. Try this link:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ymnp46xa0lfup1cd/

Not sure if that'll work though if you haven't access through a University library account. I could download the PDF and send it? There are a few similar studies out there too.

Yahew

The report is pretty specific that men were not aroused when watching booboo sex ( no erection). Women did lubricate but I would say, and the scientist suggested, that is not desire but probably a form of defence. Therefore erections and lubrications signify different things.

As for men getting erections in forced situations, I would be surprised if I didnt get an erection if a man gave me a blow job at gun point. This reports is about arousal at a distance rather than arousal by stimulation.

liah

parker kent wrote: »

I got to the article through my UCD account. Try this link:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ymnp46xa0lfup1cd/

Not sure if that'll work though if you haven't access through a University library account. I could download the PDF and send it? There are a few similar studies out there too.

All I can seem to get is a fulltext preview of the first page (unless that's it)? If you don't mind the hassle I wouldn't mind a copy of it, but no real bother if you can't be arsed.

I've been study-collecting on pretty much every topic for the last year or so.. really wish I could have a gander at some of the stuff that must be on the University library, I'd probably have a field day :pac:

parker kent

liah wrote: »

All I can seem to get is a fulltext preview of the first page (unless that's it)? If you don't mind the hassle I wouldn't mind a copy of it, but no real bother if you can't be arsed.

I've been study-collecting on pretty much every topic for the last year or so.. really wish I could have a gander at some of the stuff that must be on the University library, I'd probably have a field day :pac:

Yeah it's no hassle, I don't have to move my lazy ass! I have the full PDF file, so let me know how you want the file to get from A to B :pac:

parker kent

Yahew wrote: »

The report is pretty specific that men were not aroused when watching booboo sex ( no erection). Women did lubricate but I would say, and the scientist suggested, that is not desire but probably a form of defence. Therefore erections and lubrications signify different things.

As for men getting erections in forced situations, I would be surprised if I didnt get an erection if a man gave me a blow job at gun point. This reports is about arousal at a distance rather than arousal by stimulation.

We weren't arguing the research, we were arguing that erection=desire. Which it doesn't at all. I've had erections at all sorts of moments where I definitely had no desire!

liah

parker kent wrote: »

Yeah it's no hassle, I don't have to move my lazy ass! I have the full PDF file, so let me know how you want the file to get from A to B :pac:

PM sent Thanks a million for this.

Wibbs

liah wrote: »

If you read the posts of the m-t-f transgenders on boards, it 'reads' like women. They think like women, even if they haven't touched HRT yet. They just have female brains, exact same as I do

Oh you know me L, I've been long a champion for brain gender diffs in many areas, but it's also down to perception too. Well me for example. For a long time on this site people thought I was a woman. I 'read' like a woman apparently. In PI I was told I was sensitive like only a woman could be and a few peeps were really quite freaked out when I said I was male. Giving support in PI I was seen more as "female". When I was more strident in other parts of the site I was seen more as "male"

liah

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh you know me L, I've been long a champion for brain gender diffs in many areas, but it's also down to perception too. Well me for example. For a long time on this site people thought I was a woman. I 'read' like a woman apparently. In PI I was told I was sensitive like only a woman could be and a few peeps were really quite freaked out when I said I was male. Giving support in PI I was seen more as "female". When I was more strident in other parts of the site I was seen more as "male"

I recognize that to a degree, but I assumed those posters were female long before I ever knew they were transgender, it comes very much naturally (obviously! ). They'd probably be assumed to be female far, far more often than assumed to be male, whereas people would probably view you male more often than female - though I could be wrong.

It's also a lot down to context and general consistency, too - you read 'male' to me in pretty much every context, but there could be some specifically sensitive topic that provoked people to think of you as female due to you being a bit more sensitive than most males to the whole emotional/psychological side of things. Whereas the transgender posters read female in pretty much all contexts, with the odd deviation.

Perhaps it is down to perception, but I seriously doubt that's all of it. There's an innate femininity there.

parker kent

I've been mistakenly referred to as a woman in the ladies lounge as well Wibbs, I feel your pain!

goose2005

parker kent wrote: »

On a related note, I bookmarked the EQ test devised by Baron-Cohen when it was in The Guardian. It is worth a look.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,,937443,00.html

He wrote an article in The Observer a few weeks ago about the whole subject of empathy. I found it pretty interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/27/the-science-of-empathy

And Liah, here are a few links to Simon Baron-Cohen's studies.

Autism: The Empathizing–Systemizing (E-S) Theory
http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2009_BC_nyas.pdf

Autism, hypersystemizing, and truth http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2008_BC_JEP_Autism_hypersystemizing_and_truth.pdf

If you have access to any University Library accounts, you'll be able to get full access to the Human Sex Differences paper here.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j728x34480112869/

His wikipedia page has all his research as well!

I'm such a nerd

Of course, this automatically assumes that empathy is always a positive trait for both the individual and the group - it isn't.

It's funny ye talk about posting style, mine seems to be male half the time

I agree with

+1 As much as I say men and women are the same, I would agree with you there. I think both men and women can have what could be described as "male" or "female" brains (think I lean towards the empathy/feeling side which I'd describe as a female brain)

But guys can have "female" brains sometimes and vice versa...

liah

goose2005 wrote: »

Of course, this automatically assumes that empathy is always a positive trait for both the individual and the group - it isn't.

How is it assuming anything, it's just links to studies?