Women have no sexuality

Discussion in 'Women's Issues' started by abvavrg, Apr 14, 2007.

  1. abvavrg

    abvavrg New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Recently I read a comment from a researcher investigating sexual preference, who said that he wasn't "even sure if women have a sexuality."

    The reason, apparently, is that (most?) women become aroused by photos of naked men, women, sexual action, or even animals having sex-- while most men responded to either gay or straight porn (though this was not always in line with their verbalized sexual preference).

    So as a woman on a site about large penises, what are your thoughts on this statement? If you identify as 100% straight, do you think this statement is appropriate? What are your opinions on your *own* sexuality?
     
  2. Hotlicks

    Hotlicks New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    41
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    My GF gets turned on by romantic scenes. A male paying attention to a female. We have two ducks, drake and a hen, that nest on our property. This time of year he has sex with her in the water next the house. He holds her underwater and bangs the back of her head with his bill as he mates with her. She is basically submerged and can't even come up for air as he hits her dozens of times while on her back.

    My GF thinks his "ducky" style reminds her of my technique when I grab her pony tail and slam her doggy. When she sees the duck doing his thing, she will get a grin on her face and make me promise to do it "ducky" style when we get to bed.

    Women like attention a lot, men like to orgasm a lot.

    Women like to see females getting attention, men like to see orgasms. Porn with out a pop shot? It would never sell to men.

    IMO
     
  3. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    study sounds like it may be interesting but conclusions sound like bullshit.
     
  4. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Sounds like a load of hooey to me.

    By those criteria men don't have a sexuality either.

    If they were to say that not all women have the same ssexuality that would make sense but this seems to imply that women in general have no sexuality. And that's just crap.
     
  5. Lake Racer

    Lake Racer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    33
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California Central Coast

    Well said.
     
  6. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    Wouldn't the fact we react to a wider range of images with sexual arousal mean we have a wider and more encompassing sexuality than men, he seems to have decided his conclusion before looking at the evidence and then made a rather poor attempt to justify his conclusion.
     
  7. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I think the conclusions are idiotic. I think the rationale is exactly backward.

    If women had no sexuality, they would not get sexually aroused. The premise that many things besides porn seems to arouse women would lead ME to the conclusion that women have a more deeply-ingrained sexuality than men.
     
  8. rawbone8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto (ON, CA)
    It sounds to me like this is yet another indication that women are generally more honest than most men. Why should that define them as not having sexuality???
     
  9. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Well, if it were a credible study, they have ways to measure sexual response that do not involve self-reporting - pupil reactions, skin conductivity, respiration, capillary dilation, those sorts of autonomic things. I'm still curious as to why the data showed that women responded to a broader spectrum of stimuli, and for that were declared to "have no sexuality." Seems to me that they have more.
     
  10. the_reverend

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,254
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    sounds like an odd semantic choice. i've found that the women i've met, in general, have a much more fluid sexuality. Men, again generally, seem to have preset and static notions of how straight or gay they are and either don't allow for or outright deny any deviation once that standard is set. women on the whole seem much more dynamic and less rigid. a girl can experiment or make out with another girl or admit to finding another girl sexy or attractive without feeling shame or like it's some kind of threat to their preconceived sexual preferences. i think that's why, in my experience, most guys i know identify themselves as strictly straight or gay, while plenty of girls are comfortable admitting to being even just a little bit bi. using this to make a statement that women have "no sexuality" is kind of a dumbass thing to say, lol.
     
  11. B_Think_Kink

    B_Think_Kink New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Female
    Is the researchers name Sigmund Freud?
     
  12. abvavrg

    abvavrg New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    haha, this amused me. And no, it's wasn't Uncle Siggy.

    Arousal was measured by the amount of heat generated by blood perfusing the genital area, or by increases in penile volume measure by a sensor wrapped around the penis.

    I tend to agree that "no sexuality" is a stupid way of putting it. I think what they were trying to say was that, as others have pointed out, women fit less well into sexual categories-- fewer women are at the "extremes" of gay or straight, whatever that may mean. That's what I'm curious about: what does "lesbian" or "straight" mean to the women here?

    For the women who *do* identify with a sexuality (especially those specifically interested in penises, as I'm assuming about the women at this site), what they think about the findings of this study?

    Sexuality is a fascinating topic.
     
  13. Aplus

    Aplus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Not sure I believe any of that, but who knows. The research seems to suggest that women are generally more visual then men, which seems to go against everything I've heard. When you factor is the judgments and opinions of friends, family, co-workers, congregations, and society in general, I'm not 100% sure any such study could be really an involuntary one anyway, especially with men, who society, with nature, tends to make more naturally rigid anyway.
     
  14. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    I think by "sexuality" they meant "sexual preference." Maybe it was a poor word choice. Though still, the conclusions as presented here sound like bullshit. Regardless of how that word was intended.
     
  15. rawbone8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto (ON, CA)
    Give us a link to the study, please. It would benefit us in the discussion.
     
  16. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds like a definitional problem.

    All fields with any pretenses to scientific methodology have relatively precise definitions of the terms used by workers in that field. Statements cannot be understood in terms of everyday definitions of the terms. In short, and lacking a link to the statement, the study, or even the journal in which it appeared, we haven't the faintest fucking clue [if I might invoke some technical jargon] as to what the statement is supposed to mean.

    I don't even see any notable difference in the purported findings. Becoming "aroused by photos of naked men, women, sexual action, or even animals having sex" vs. responding "to either gay or straight porn" means approximately no difference between the genders.

    Except for maybe that animal thing.
     
  17. abvavrg

    abvavrg New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah ha! I read the study on good old fashioned paper (as opposed to online), but here is a newspaper interpretation of it, along with the rest of the quotation that stuck in my mind:

    "I'm not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men."

    Standard-Freelancer.com | Science Questions Sexual Orientation
     
  18. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Perhaps if they'd bred horses...
     
  19. headbang8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,272
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Munich (BY, DE)
    He should have said women are omnisexual, not asexual.

    Judging by my limited experience trying to live in relationships with women, I'd back that.

    Emotional arousal and sexual arousal seem almost inseparable for women. If I stroke a woman's breast, she's aroused. If I fix her breakfast in bed, she's aroused. If I thoughtfully open a car door for her, she's aroused. If I admire a beautiful sunset with her, she's aroused. If I look into her eyes and flash a sympathetic smile, as she tells me she's had a horrible day, she's aroused.

    On the other hand (and this was the part I found insufferable in my relationships with women) if I do something she doesn't like, she feels sexually violated. If I don't open the car door for her, she feels sexually violated. If I don't think the sunset is all that big a deal, she feels sexually violated. If I don't look up from my crossword as she tells me she's had a horrible day, she feels sexually violated. It was almost as bad as if I had fondled her against her will.

    Is this state of almost universal low-level arousal a good thing? Are men insensitive, or are women hyper-sensitive? Does this tension serve a useful evolutionary purpose? Dunno.

    IMHO, men do separate sexual arousal from emotional arousal. And I think it's fair to say that women have a tough time understanding that. Just as much as the researcher couldn't understand that women didn't separate them.
     
  20. Ethyl

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,476
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Philadelphia (PA, US)
Draft saved Draft deleted