Monday, February 02, 2009

This is Interesting

Over here. (Warning: the title is stupid, and the second half of the article is disturbing.)

I knew the first bit, how straight guys like to watch M/F and F/F -- but this bit is a tiny surprise:

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...

Addressing the question of why women are into more sorts of sex than men are, we get this:

Are men simply more inhibited, more constrained by the bounds of culture? Chivers has tried to eliminate this explanation by including male-to-female transsexuals as subjects in one of her series of experiments (one that showed only human sex). These trans women, both those who were heterosexual and those who were homosexual, responded genitally and subjectively in categorical ways. They responded like men.

The researcher adds, though, that we can't eliminate nurture as a cause -- though I don't remember being encouraged to find gay guys hot, frankly.

And this part is disturbing:

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.”

Evolution’s legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings.


That's my bold there, of course. During unwanted vaginal penetration would be evolutionary biologist-speak for rape, I reckon. We're turned on by M/M sex because that way we won't get injured when we're raped. Hmm.

Then the second half of the article is all about how much women want to be raped, that's just....not to mention the woman who's doing the research for that bit is all, "I'm a feminist, but PC is so not sexy," which sure you're feminist. Tool.

2 comments:

Bardiac said...

Oh, ugh. I used to hate when my bio classes would go all sociobiology-as-an-excuse-for- sexism. BLARGH!

violet said...

So:

1. All women are really omnisexual.
2. Trans women are really men.
3. Women's arousal is tied intimately to rape.

I'm not really one to dismiss research results I don't like, but the way those results became conclusions (became an NYT article) seems, perhaps, suspect.