Female Arousal

This is copied from a blog that I read often. I loved it.

There was an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail* about a study done on human arousal. They showed people various pictures and monitored physical arousal rates.

Straight guys are turned on by pictures of naked women, and gay guys are turned on by pictures of naked men. Lesbians are turned on by pictures of naked women. That's all to be expected. But straight women are of a different ilk.

Straight women are physically turned on by pictures of men about as much as they're turned on by pictures of landscapes, trees, mountains, that sort of thing. That is to say, not very much. What does turn them on? Pictures of naked women, men and women having sex together, and animals mating.

I think this can help to explain why Playgirl never sells (although I prefer my theory of hard-on avoidance hindering the development of a sustained graphic imagination). It's not that women aren't visually stimulated; it's that men aren't very visually appealing to women. By my estimation, my guy is incredibly hot. I love to watch him sleep, and I stare at him when he works. But when I look at him, I feel it in the pit of my stomach, not my groin. What does get me slippery is watching the Victoria Secret fashion show and various sex scenes in movies - just like the study says! I'm not so sure about the animal sex thing. I haven't notice feeling hot and horny watching nature shows, but I'll sure pay more attention to that in future.

But the interesting thing is how the researchers understood the data. One insisted it means all women are actually bi-sexual; the other argued that it means women's sexuality is complex. I lean towards the latter analysis. What arouses me and what I want to do are two different things - for me in particular. I've written before about finding rape scenes arousing, and I sure don't want to be the one in that visual.

I also think that women are just more aesthetically pleasing than men. It's all those soft rounded curves. It's the breasts! For hundred's of years women have been glorified in art. Sure there's Michelangelo's David and a few other dudes, but it's mainly women. And I don't think it's just because most artists through the ages have been guys. I think women are just visually stunning.

And I can't help feel a bit sorry for all those guys who aren't actually turning as many women on as they thought regardless how often they hit the gym.

I wonder to what extent this fact, it would seem, about heterosexual women plays a part in the myriad problems women have becoming aroused and getting off. We're with a man, but that man isn't a visual turn-on. What would happen if women plastered their rooms with pictures of naked women and people having sex. Then while she's getting it on with a man, she can get turned on by what he's doing to her and what she's seeing around her. The problem with this is that many women would be uncomfortable with porn on their walls. It's too bad.

I enjoy sex because I have a visual fantasy life going in my head. But this very fantasy world is something I've struggled with myself. I spent some time, in my 20s, trying to actually be there during sex - to be mentally present for the duration. It bothered me that once things got going, I took off in my head to see something more interesting than what was right in front of me. I figured it was because of the years I spent exploring my sexuality alone. I thought I had just trained myself to immediately click on a "show" when I wanted to get off. And now that I had a real, live partner, I wanted to untrain that habit. But I couldn't. If I didn't turn on the pictures in my head, I couldn't get anywhere. It wasn't until my early 30s that I decided I didn't care anymore. I'm cool with being in my head during sex - mainly. Okay, there's a niggling part that wishes I was 100% involved, but I can live with it for the sake of actually getting off. I'm honouring my personal arousal process, dammit!

I just can't believe I'm actually normal!! (It's actually kinda disappointing to tell you the truth.)


* I can't, for the life of me, find the article on-line, but I found this instead even though it has a slightly different result. I cut it out the original article and have it at work, so I know I didn't dream it.



Thanks for the interesting blog!