Very Interesting Article

[wait_out]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=1&em&emc=eta1

The ADHD crowd may have a hard time getting through this one.

Seriously though 2 passages really stood out to me:

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.

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.... 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.

Ok, that's all old hat to us here, though it's interesting coming from a different source. Secondly:

...a body of evidence involving rape has influenced her construction of separate systems. She has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes. So, in an attempt to understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, 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.”

There's some other things as well, including one researcher stating “women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” -- but check it out for yourself if you're interested. Apologies if this was already posted.

 

[squirrels]

Seems pretty simple to me.

WOMEN LIE ABOUT THEIR LEVEL OF AROUSAL.

Thus, physically, they're creaming themselves, but they can't admit to themselves that they're aroused, so they report it as being LESS than it actually is. I can't believe any study is being regarded as legit that asks people in general to give THEIR rating of their arousal...it instantly introduces bias.

The reason lesbians seem to report a closer relationship between physical arousal and verbal reporting of arousal is because they are already widely regarded as sexual "deviants", so there's no embarassment to prevent them from admitting when they have a sexual response to something that would otherwise be taboo to have a response to.

Gunwitch was right...women LOVE sex. They just wont' admit it in public. And the retarded New York Times takes what they say at face-value.

This is why men don't get laid...they read crap like this and think women DON'T like sex and that they as men have to EARN it.

The trick to getting laid isn't getting a woman aroused. The trick is finding a way through the "social minefield" that they set up. Step on a "social mine" and she explodes and immediately demands the world around her come to the defense of her va-jay-jay. She could be creaming her panties for you and she will STILL mount an instinctive defense because she's worried about "what people will think" and "what'll happen if you get her pregnant".

 

[wait_out]

You are correct that you can't pull the cultural apart from the biological regarding women's desire -- FYI that was noted in the article. But the reason it's worth looking outside a PUA forum, is because what you're stating from Gunwitch is parroted everywhere because it's an enabling ideology, not something proven by good science. If you generalize all women are aroused and lying about it, you have a good reason to be aggressive to the point of coercion.

This "women love sex and are just lying if they say no" idea falls apart when you find victims of rape who were turned on or orgasmed during the experience. Calling her a liar after the fact puts the physiological response of the women ahead of her ability to make personal choices. This is evolutionary reality but socially unacceptable. Hence both "true" desire and a reflexive sexual response to minimize the physical danger of rape. It's easy to understand why this happens and most people still recognize it as sexual assault.

Then you get into the problematic area of where there's not really a strong "no" or "yes"... I think if women were encouraged to be more individually assertive and decisive there would be a lot less problems. Consider also, before birth control, reproduction affected families and was strictly managed, to the point where women were executed as a warning (and still are, see honor killings).

I do think women are more socially conformist despite the fact it's no longer necessary or logical, but there's historical reasons for that and it includes our modern opinions of them. Slut is still a bad insult for a girl right? And if all girls were sluts, there'd be no DJ's either, right?

I'm not going to moralize, it's just interesting to see some of these conclusions coming from research scientists.

 

[squirrels]

I'm not gonna go into it with you. I can buy that there's some vestigial rape reflex, since back in "wild days", men didn't take "no" for an answer all the time.

But when you sit a girl down to watch porn (not rape porn, just normal-people porn) and her 'tang gets wet but she reports no arousal, I don't buy that that's some vestigial rape reflex.

Why don't lesbian women have the rape reflex? Can they not be raped?? Or are they just more honest about sexual arousal?

Besides, I'm not queuing off of a girl's "wetness" down there to tell me whether she likes me or not. By the time I notice how wet she is, I usually already have a VERY good idea of whether she wants to f**k or not.

You're right, "her p***y was wet" is not a defense against a rape allegation. But you have a female "scientist" (who used to counsel rape victims...bias maybe?) writing for a liberal newspaper trying to push the idea that women don't get turned on by sexual activity and that it's all some physical reflex. I call BS.

 

[Drewskie]

Seems pretty simple to me.

WOMEN LIE ABOUT THEIR LEVEL OF AROUSAL.

Thus, physically, they're creaming themselves, but they can't admit to themselves that they're aroused, so they report it as being LESS than it actually is. I can't believe any study is being regarded as legit that asks people in general to give THEIR rating of their arousal...it instantly introduces bias.

The reason lesbians seem to report a closer relationship between physical arousal and verbal reporting of arousal is because they are already widely regarded as sexual "deviants", so there's no embarassment to prevent them from admitting when they have a sexual response to something that would otherwise be taboo to have a response to.

Gunwitch was right...women LOVE sex. They just wont' admit it in public. And the retarded New York Times takes what they say at face-value.

This is why men don't get laid...they read crap like this and think women DON'T like sex and that they as men have to EARN it.

The trick to getting laid isn't getting a woman aroused. The trick is finding a way through the "social minefield" that they set up. Step on a "social mine" and she explodes and immediately demands the world around her come to the defense of her va-jay-jay. She could be creaming her panties for you and she will STILL mount an instinctive defense because she's worried about "what people will think" and "what'll happen if you get her pregnant".

Goddam good post, that says soo many thing in very little words, all what I think is gold. It's weird, just yesterday my friend was telling me about this study, he must have just read it as well.

 

[wait_out]

Why don't lesbian women have the rape reflex? Can they not be raped?? Or are they just more honest about sexual arousal?

Read closely:

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.

...you have a female "scientist" (who used to counsel rape victims...bias maybe?) writing for a liberal newspaper trying to push the idea that women don't get turned on by sexual activity and that it's all some physical reflex. I call BS.

Here's the possibility that it's BS, as you said, as stated by the writer.

Chivers, too, struggled over language about this subject... This last concept seemed to confound a simpler truth, that women associate lubrication with being turned on. The idea of dual systems appeared, possibly, to be the product of an unscientific impulse, a wish to make comforting sense of the unsettling evidence of women’s arousal during rape and during depictions of sexual assault in the lab.

Chivers is not a "scientist" -- she IS a scientist. That doesn't mean she's a good one -- we don't know her methodology. However, to be dismissive of her findings due to her gender, or the fact that she worked with rape victims, or that it was published in the NYT, constitutes a bias on your part, no?

Chivers is also not pushing the idea that women don't get turned on by sexual activity. She found straight, conventionally sexual women get wetter watching Bonobo monkeys fukcing. It's also not a 'rape reflex', it's reflexive to EVERYTHING sexual -- which is why an exercising women provokes more arousal in a women than a calmly walking man.

Her research findings will no doubt be contested by others, if they're faulty they'll eventually be exposed, if they're good they'll be confirmed. They're not meant to help you get laid, so don't take this article in the wrong sense, ok? Let's keep the gender war out of the lab please.

 

[mrRuckus]

I want to see a study that determines whether rape itself is emotionally traumatizing or if everyone telling her it's supposed to be traumatizing makes it traumatizing.

 

[Tazman]

I want to see a study that determines whether rape itself is emotionally traumatizing or if everyone telling her it's supposed to be traumatizing makes it traumatizing.

It's both actually. I have a sister who had it happen and she seems to use it to excuse any shortcomings she has and/or lack of accountability for any wrong doings. She says it "ruined her life". Mind you, it happened a really long time ago and if you make no effort to leave it in the past it serves as a convenient excuse not to accept responsibility for your actions.

It's just another tool in the old toolbox.

Part of the "trauma" involves what other people think about what took place.

It's almost like when you were a child and got a cut somewhere on your body that you felt but it didn't bother you much until someone pointed it out and made a big deal out of it, then you started crying.

I'm not trying to minimize the pain (emotional/physical) of rape, but there comes a point where you have to put it behind you and not let it define who you are as a person, I know other victims who do quite well for themselves and don't use it as a crutch.

 

[jophil28]

and if you make no effort to leave it in the past it serves as a convenient excuse not to accept responsibility for your actions.

It's just another tool in the old toolbox.

When I was involved with Al-Anon as well as AA back in the early '90's, I saw many women initially attend meetings with the belief that AL-Anon was going to teach them some new tricks to get their husbands to quit drinking, and straighten up.

IT was a common occurence that when some of these women were quietly confronted with the truth of how their OWN self important arrogance was wrecking their relationships/marriages the women did not return.

Only those women who were courageous enough to "look at " themselves and accept some accountability for their marriage mess stayed in the program.

IT took many months (sometimes years) for even the most "dedicated " AL Anon attendee to abandon her beloved "victim" thinking.

Women rarely toss a valuable tool like victimhood. It has served them well.

 

[Luthor Rex]

...a body of evidence involving rape has influenced her construction of separate systems. She has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes. So, in an attempt to understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, 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.”

I'm glad this is an anonymous forum because this research backs up other things I've read (and women I've talked to) and makes me think that a rapist who is gentle (relatively speaking) and polite and handsome can more or less get a way with it.

Then you get into the problematic area of where there's not really a strong "no" or "yes"... I think if women were encouraged to be more individually assertive and decisive there would be a lot less problems.

Agree!

A symbolic scene ran through Meana’s talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana’s vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders. Meana apologized for the regressive, anti-feminist sound of the scene.

This is another important part of the article. Think about how really has the power in this situation -- it isn't the man. "ANYTHING that you can't say NO to, is your MASTER. And YOU are it's SLAVE." -V.U.

Women dream of power over men. Men conquer the world, women conquer men, as Pook says.

 

[horaholic]

Lets watch what lines we cross here bro. Thats all Im gonna say .