Via robotwisdom and article: What Makes People Gay? I’m curious in what other ways men, gay men, and women experience things differently:
Researchers at Northwestern University, outside Chicago, are doing this work as a follow-up to their studies of arousal using genital measurement tools. They found that while straight men were aroused by film clips of two women having sex, and gay men were aroused by clips of two men having sex, most of the men who identified themselves as bisexual showed gay arousal patterns. More surprising was just how different the story with women turned out to be. Most women, whether they identified as straight, lesbian, or bisexual, were significantly aroused by straight, gay, and lesbian sex. “I’m not suggesting that most women are bisexual,” says Michael Bailey, the psychology professor whose lab conducted the studies. “I’m suggesting that whatever a woman’s sexual arousal pattern is, it has little to do with her sexual orientation.” That’s fundamentally different from men. “In men, arousal is orientation. It’s as simple as that. That’s how gay men learn they are gay.”
(Warning: Feminist theory ahead). Part of the reason why I think even straight women get turned on by seeing other women is because everyone in our culture is used to seeing the female body as sexualized. In pop culture, female body = sexy much more often than male body = sexy, so it’s not surprising to me at all that more people are turned on by the site of it.
What about the bit about women of all orientations being turned on by gay male or hetero sex?
I didn’t say that guys weren’t seen as sexy at all–they’re just not as sexualized as women are. That doesn’t mean they’re not sexualized.
But, this article seems to suggest that there is little difference in arousal pattern based on what women are viewing as long as its some depicition of sexual intercourse. So, how can you establish that it has anything to do with how sexualized a particular gender is? This study seems to be saying that women just get turned on by the depiction of sex.
If the female response is purely based on what our society decides to sexualize then that seems so arbitrary like women could be manipulated into finding anything arousing as long as its impressed on them by society, which endows this amazingly organized (in the sense that there is semi-conscious manipulation) society with an amazing power over biology. I just don’t buy that.
Well, I do buy it, to an extent. Putting it all on biology is trying to make things too simple, as is trying to put it all on society. But you hit the nail on the head–it IS arbitrary. So much of what we do to enact gender is arbitrary and historically contextual. I really doubt the results of this test would be the same if you tested people from the 1700s, or from the 1930s, or even people from a different culture in our current time.
To me, this is the same as saying that animal sexual behavior differences are arbitrary. That may be the case, but the result is the same nonetheless. In other words the differences exist. In the animal kingdom, differences exist without needing to be attributed to anything other than biology. Why should circumstances governing human behavior be so different? I think people are uncomfortable with biological explanations because we all want to believe that we have control over fundamental human impulses and feelings. I believe that results from the 1700s and the 1930s would be roughly similar to any other time depending on what you’re actually testing ie. arousal patterns, etc.
I’ll have to disgree with you on the historical differents btw arousal patterns. And I don’t argue that sexual differences don’t exist–they do–but I think human society as a whole puts way more emphasis on these differences than animals do. Beyond the vagaries of attracting a mate and reproduction, are the lives of male versus female animals that different? Not really. Yet humans posit all sorts of non-reproductive differences between men and women that are attributable to their sex/gender. Just take the title of that stupid book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus–some believe that men and women figuratively come from different conceptual planets, that each have entirely different inner lives and ways of being (due to their gender) that have little or nothing to do with mating and making babies. Sure, you could argue that men enjoying physical sports more than women may have had something to do with men needing to get strong to defend the tribe from saber-toothed tigers, but we’re sort of beyond that now.
And that’s where society comes in. Sexuality in our culture has gone far beyond “fundamental impulses and feelings.” Many are moving beyond the “natural need/desire” to pair-bond or make babies, which blows up the notion that any of that gendered type stuff wasn’t really “natural” at all, if people are able to abandon it.
And when I say that society has caused a lot of gender differences, that doesn’t imply that they are any easier to “control” than biological differences. That’s just like saying to a depressed person, “It’s all in your mind, just get happy already!” The thing is, though…I think that there is some choice. You can choose to ignore what society dictates, or what one’s body/biology says you should do. It may not make much of a difference in your life right now, you may not even be successful at it, but I think our society has undergone vast changes over the centuries due to choices we have made as a culture concerning how we act as humans.
For instance, in the 1700 and 1800s, it was believed by many scholars that (middle class) women were “naturally” more childish and infantile than men, and that men were inherently more capable, intelligent and resourceful at dealing with events in the marketplace, and that women, due to their infantility, needed to stay home and be protected from what went on outside. Now we’ve had a near role-reversal. In popular culture, women are often seen as being more practical and adult than men are, and that it’s now men who are the big babies who just want someone who can take care of them (this isn’t the rule, obviously, but I’m sure you’ve seen sitcom jokes that deal with this subject).
I’m not even sure where I’m going with this now, and I’ve obviously strayed off topic. I apologize for the length of my rant. I’m interested in what you have to say in return, but I do think that neither of us is going to convince the other to change our minds. It’s fun to debate, though.
“I think human society as a whole puts way more emphasis on these differences than animals do.”
Animals are incapable of even conceiving their own difference, so I’m not sure they can even put less emphasis. I also don’t think human society (as a whole) has an agenda to preserve some unnaturally weighted system of gender difference.
“Beyond the vagaries of attracting a mate and reproduction, are the lives of male versus female animals that different? Not really.”
I’m curious how you can know this. Of course, within any group of like creatures there are similarities, however we know that in many sexually dimorphic species there are fundamental differences in lifestyle depending on the sex. For example, consider the lives of hyenas, which exist in a matriarchal society, or ants, or the great apes. The sex of the particular organism in each of these cases dictates a completely different lifestyle. In the case of hyenas, dominance of the pack, in the case of gorillas and chimpanzees, male / female social structures are very different. In the sense that all organisms must look for food and navigate the environment it is true that we share a lot of common ground. Beyond that there is amazing variety between the sexes. Why should human beings be so uniform in thought and consciousness between the sexes?
“Many are moving beyond the “natural need/desire†to pair-bond or make babies, which blows up the notion that any of that gendered type stuff wasn’t really “natural†at all, if people are able to abandon it.”
I’d be curious at the percentages in this behavior. I think this is a serious assumption. Also, I believe its completely impossible to abandon the sexual impulse unless your body has grown beyond the physical capability to make babies, and the sexual impulse is the desire (conscious or unconscious) to generate offspring.
More to come…
“For instance, in the 1700 and 1800s, it was believed by many scholars that (middle class) women were “naturally†more childish and infantile than men, and that men were inherently more capable, intelligent and resourceful at dealing with events in the marketplace, and that women, due to their infantility, needed to stay home and be protected from what went on outside.”
Science lacked any sense of rigor or observation during this time. In the 1700’s and 1800’s some people also believed that the lumps on your skull indicated your temper. I don’t see how this argues for how current distinctions are similarly arbitrary or stupid. As for how men and women are changing roles, maybe, however even if this were true to the degree you suggest, you would still have to somehow prove this is not also biological. For example, increases in the levels of testosterone in the womb during pregnancy, increases in environmentally present hormones, etc.
Somewhat delayed reply from a non-native speaker so bare with me beyond the typos. Read all the comments (allas not the article hah) what i think is being missed is how women of any declared sexual orientation can get aroused even by a man/man picture and gay man dont get aroused by woman/woman picture. Barring any idiosincracies (uh oh) regarding what they decide to be measurment of arousal that only seams to me to negate Sara’s theory even stronger. How i see it society can influence arousal through her theory in 2 ways . One by making the female body sexualized (her suggestion) which would only suggest that gay man would get exited by woman/woman pictures (provided the society had two biologicaly equal entities to influence on). Since that is not the case we have a difference in arousal thats not attributable to society. The other way of influence of society is to somehow bias the woman into expecting from her to be more easily/uniformlly aroused which in my opinion is hardly the case since its actually man (especially by woman) that is expected to be aroused more easily (how many times a minute?). So the second maybe the only issue for debate but i think it obvious that i think biology is playing its part.
in the intrest of full disclosure DM is a man (was hard to guess huh lol)
Great point, DM.
Are you there?…
All the darkness in the world cannot put out the smallest candle. The darker it is, more brightly shines the candle. instead of complaining about the dark search for your candle. Believe me; It exists…