Comments on: Provocative results on male / female arousal

By: Hi there

Hi there — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:14:11 +0000

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…

By: chris sivori

chris sivori — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:38:58 +0000

Great point, DM.

By: DM

DM — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:06:03 +0000

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)

By: chris sivori

chris sivori — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:21:50 +0000

“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.