Women are less visually stimulated? Not so fast!

[Wonderbread Leotard]

I was recently browsing old posts here on FF and come across a thread entitled Porn off the beaten path. Several participants asserted that women are significantly less visually stimulated than men. On top of that, viscousmemories posted: "I've long been under the impression that it was accepted as fact in the neuroscientific and psychological community that there are distinct differences between men and women when it comes to visual pornography." By this he was referring to the claim that "women are less visual/bestial."

However, as I have always intuitively figured (and observed), the truth is different. For example, a neurological study by Andrey Anokhin, et al. immediately came to mind. Since that old thread was from way back in early 2005, I figured I'd just start a new thread about this rather than practice necromancy.

From an article about the Anokhin study:

A great deal of past research has suggested that men are more visual creatures than women and get more aroused by erotic images than women. Anokhin says the fact that the women's brains in this study exhibited such a quick response to erotic pictures suggests that, perhaps for evolutionary reasons, our brains are programmed to preferentially respond to erotic material.

"Usually men subjectively rate erotic material much higher than women," he says. "So based on those data we would expect lower responses in women, but that was not the case. Women have responses as strong as those seen in men."

More on the study here:

Erotic images elicit strong response from brain

[Doctor X]

First.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[biochemgirl]

I don't think women are less visually stimulated necessarily. I think it's the nature of the majority of porn that probably turn women off and make them more likely to use books or other erotic material. There's a growing number of companies producing more "women friendly" porn so as I said I really think it's the manner in which the material is presented.

[Lady Brik]

Originally Posted by biochemgirl

I don't think women are less visually stimulated necessarily. I think it's the nature of the majority of porn that probably turn women off and make them more likely to use books or other erotic material. There's a growing number of companies producing more "women friendly" porn so as I said I really think it's the manner in which the material is presented.

I would agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I am much more into erotic fiction than I am to porn, but Brik is the opposite.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

It's definitely not that women inherently want kinder/gentler/more boring visual porn.

Even setting aside its empirical problems, "women are less visual" is not even needed to explain anything. Real differences in behavior (and many alleged differences are false or overblown) can instead be explained by differences that have the advantage of being empirically true. For example: Women tend to have a less consistently strong sex drive.

This same principle can be applied to many other behavioral differences, like women committing less molestation overall. It's not that they are "kinder or gentler" by nature (lol), but rather that the sexual part of the motivation is less consistently strong.

And just to be extra clear, I am not saying that female sexual desire cannot be strong, but that it's usually less consistently so. When it's strong, it's strong. And I can confirm that pretty much all the women I personally know are very visually stimulated.

[Qingdai]

I am just going to say, there is nothing sexy about Ron Jeremy.
Not now, not then at the "height" of his career.
The dudes in porn are fucking ugly.

[Ensign Steve]

I once saw a Law and Order: SVU (or possibly a CSI) where they determined that the "accidental" death by asphyxiation (the masturbating kind) was staged, because there had been porn and women don't use porn when they are by themselves. I lolled.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

I once saw a Law and Order: SVU (or possibly a CSI) where they determined that the "accidental" death by asphyxiation (the masturbating kind) was staged, because there had been porn and women don't use porn when they are by themselves. I lolled.

Ensign, perform a scan to determine what planet those SVU writers hail from. I want a spectral analysis to determine the color of the sky in their world.

Seriously, that is messed up. I might laugh seeing that, but I'd also get a bit of a headache.

PS: I had a crush on a certain Deanna growing up, including some fantasies that could easily be described as hardcore pornographic.

[biochemgirl]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

It's definitely not that women inherently want kinder/gentler/more boring visual porn.

More boring? That's just your personal opinon I suppose. Nothing's true for all women of course but I think there's a good chunk out there that are turned off by hardcore porn that has a lot of blowjobs and just banging. They'd probably be more receptive to porn that built up slowly with a lot of foreplay, kissing, fondling. It has less to do with the "kinder/gentler" and moreso to do with how women and men are stimulated differently physically.

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Even setting aside its empirical problems, "women are less visual" is not even needed to explain anything. Real differences in behavior (and many alleged differences are false or overblown) can instead be explained by differences that have the advantage of being empirically true. For example: Women tend to have a less consistently strong sex drive.

This same principle can be applied to many other behavioral differences, like women committing less molestation overall. It's not that they are "kinder or gentler" by nature (lol), but rather that the sexual part of the motivation is less consistently strong.

And just to be extra clear, I am not saying that female sexual desire cannot be strong, but that it's usually less consistently so. When it's strong, it's strong. And I can confirm that pretty much all the women I personally know are very visually stimulated.

O.k. I am one woman that does NOT have a less consistently strong sex drive. And I believe that that isn't necessarily the case in the first place. The desire is there but women are more likely to let the stress of their lives interfere with their sex lives. I don't think that's as much the case for men.

Oh and I am with Qingdai on the all dudes in porn are ugly.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by biochemgirl

O.k. I am one woman that does NOT have a less consistently strong sex drive. And I believe that that isn't necessarily the case in the first place.

What I meant is that it tends to be true of women and the empirical evidence backing this up is very strong, unlike the view that women are less visually stimulated per se which does look to be a myth.

As for strength of libido, mainstream researchers often go even further than I do and simply pronounce the female sex drive "weaker:"

Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence

I think it is more appropriately nuanced to say "not as consistently strong." Believe me, I am well aware that women are sexual beings and can be extremely sexual at times.

Originally Posted by biochemgirl

The desire is there but women are more likely to let the stress of their lives interfere with their sex lives. I don't think that's as much the case for men.

Agreed, with certain types of stress standing out in particular in this regard. This is one reason their sex drive tends to be less consistently strong: their libido is in a sense more complicated and, in ways, more centered in the head than the genitals. Another factor to consider is women's much lower levels of testosterone.

[biochemgirl]

When you say their libido is more complicated that's exactly what I was thinking too.

[Shelli]

hmm.. I'm sensing a theme with Sov's topics of interest...

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by Shelli

hmm.. I'm sensing a theme with Sov's topics of interest...

I am interested indeed in certain topics of sexuality. I think it's a reasonable assumption that they should not be out of place in a subforum called... Sexuality! Sexual topics are wide-ranging and complex in themselves. But even beyond the sexual, I show an intellectual interest in a remarkable range of subjects. Considering my posts at , their topics span everything from "animal rights" to "democracy": the philosophical, the political, the social, the economic... Include my posts at the SS, and other forums, and the range grows even wider than that evinced in my two weeks or so here as an active poster.

In contrast, your range of topics spans everything from Smilies to Smilies to ... Smilies. Not that there is anything wrong with that, if that's your main focus in life as a forty-year-old. Smilies are cool, but my own interests are much more diverse.

[Shelli]

blogblogblogblogblogblogblog...

Now, back in your cage with you. BACK!

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by Shelli

blogblogblogblogblogblogblog...

Like. . . oh. my. gawd! So toe-talay boraaaaang!

Originally Posted by Shelli

Now, back in your cage with you. BACK!

You flirt!

FWIW, I was definitely exaggerating to say that Smilies are your entire range of interest. I did want to point out that my intellectual interests are diverse and there's no problem with topics of sexuality being among them.

[rigorist]

TFA only says there is a reaction, not what kind of reaction.

[Shelli]

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by Shelli

Hawt...

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Shelli

Hey!

He's my bitch!

Well, my neighbour's dog's bitch that is.

[Shelli]

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by biochemgirl

More boring? That's just your personal opinon I suppose.

You don't understand, bcg. The Sovereign doesn't have "opinions", all his statements are backed up by rational, intellectual arguments.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by JoeP

You don't understand, bcg. The Sovereign doesn't have "opinions", all his statements are backed up by rational, intellectual arguments.

I have backed up many of my statements on here with such arguments, whereas you have backed up none of yours. The difference is so glaring that I may have some third parties from elsewhere with background in logic (and not caught up in the sheep-stampede pile-on drama you started here) take a look and write up an analysis.

No, I was not referring merely to my personal opinion of "boring;" but using the term as many others use it: quick shorthand for pornography with fewer themes of blatant force, objectification or degradation.

[erimir]

Which is a subjective (i.e. opinion-based) usage of the word "boring", regardless of whether there are people who agree with that usage.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

I have backed up many of my statements on here with such arguments, whereas you have backed up none of yours. The difference is so glaring that I may have some third parties from elsewhere with background in logic (and not caught up in the sheep-stampede pile-on drama you started here) take a look and write up an analysis.

No, I was not referring merely to my personal opinion of "boring;" but using the term as many others use it: quick shorthand for pornography with fewer themes of blatant force, objectification or degradation.

Why should anyone care?

If your arguments are not persuasive, it does not matter how much of a "background in logic" some third parties have. The arguments remain unpersuasive. Logic is not an end in and of itself; it is a tool of persuasion.