New study calls BS on the male gaze and arousal
Men Aren't 'More Visual' Or More Easily Turned On Than Women Are, Study Finds
You know that ol' myth that men are "more visual" and get turned on more easily than women do?
Well, a large new meta-analysis of dozens of studies on the theory just called BS.
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/men-not-more-visual-or-easily-aroused-than-women-research-shows
After reading the article, I question why men are four times more likely than women to report having watched pornography in the past month (44 percent vs. 11 percent). The article states that "we, as a society, have, of course, artificially created and enforced social norms that dictate men are just naturally more sexual and get turned on immediately by anything even vaguely sexual they observe. These are norms that most men grew up with and have over time learned to adhere to instinctively. The more you repeat a myth, the more power it has."
There's likely a more dynamic explanation than that we as men are socially conditioned to be "more visual" than women, but I don't know what it could be. Any ideas?
stoneandy wrote:The article states that "we, as a society, have, of course, artificially created and enforced social norms that dictate men are just naturally more sexual and get turned on immediately by anything even vaguely sexual they observe. These are norms that most men grew up with and have over time learned to adhere to instinctively. The more you repeat a myth, the more power it has."
Yes, it may be more evidence of male entitlement, when men are encouraged to seek out women for sex but women are discouraged from seeking out men for sex, because it's the women who are left holding the bag, so to speak. It's so ingrained in our culture that we are having a devil of a time rooting it out. Without getting into the merits of the #MeToo movement, it's clear to me that it's a reaction to this that's been a long time coming, and the disparity will precipitate a great cultural clash in the future.
Thank you for such well thought out response. Good to know some people here have the ability to reason beyond their own singular mindset.Yes, it may be more evidence of male entitlement, when men are encouraged to seek out women for sex but women are discouraged from seeking out men for sex, because it's the women who are left holding the bag, so to speak. It's so ingrained in our culture that we are having a devil of a time rooting it out. Without getting into the merits of the #MeToo movement, it's clear to me that it's a reaction to this that's been a long time coming, and the disparity will precipitate a great cultural clash in the future.
Yes, it may be more evidence of male entitlement, when men are encouraged to seek out women for sex but women are discouraged from seeking out men for sex, because it's the women who are left holding the bag, so to speak. It's so ingrained in our culture that we are having a devil of a time rooting it out. Without getting into the merits of the #MeToo movement, it's clear to me that it's a reaction to this that's been a long time coming, and the disparity will precipitate a great cultural clash in the future.
Men are often judged for being "too" sexual/visual/aggressive with women as the consequential victims, and there's a cultural emphasis on fixing this by making "the future is feminine." It puts men in an uncomfortable position of being either a horny toad (repressed or otherwise) or an emasculated milquetoast. I've grown up with both and identify with neither. As a single dad of an 18 and 20 year old, I don't see good role models out there in terms of healthy heterosexual dating dynamics. The aggression of patriarchy is only balanced by toxic femininity, such as women staging grounds to claim unfounded protective orders to keep dads from seeing their kids. The unhealthy dynamics go both ways, misogyny: check: misandry; check. It's my hope that nudism in the future can help define a healthy path forward rather than amplifying old unhealthy patterns like a broken record sans clothes.
There's likely a more dynamic explanation than that we as men are socially conditioned to be "more visual" than women, but I don't know what it could be. Any ideas?
The article dismisses self-reported arousal, and looks only at studies of brain activity. The studies surveyed, collectively, certainly show that the machinery for paying particular attention to sexual imagery is in there, for both sexes. But we did not evolve to look at pictures, which are an artifact of our own making: that machinery is there by way of response to the sight of actual sexual arousal, activity, availability, or threat. And of course those things are going to matter, a lot, to a woman who encounters them.
But the presence of the machinery doesn't really say anything about what it means to the individual to see the image. For that, you have to ask them, and the analysis excluded studies that did that. And you have to look at concrete responses - what people actually do - which are easy to dismiss as socially conditioned, but patterns of response can also be biologically influenced.
An analogy: All adult humans have the machinery in their bodies to give milk. But a scientist who suggested that men's failure to nurse their babies was socially conditioned neglect would be laughed out of the room.
You make some interesting points here. Might be hard for any one study to cover all those bases. May indicate that follow up studies are needed.There's likely a more dynamic explanation than that we as men are socially conditioned to be "more visual" than women, but I don't know what it could be. Any ideas?The article dismisses self-reported arousal, and looks only at studies of brain activity. The studies surveyed, collectively, certainly show that the machinery for paying particular attention to sexual imagery is in there, for both sexes. But we did not evolve to look at pictures, which are an artifact of our own making: that machinery is there by way of response to the sight of actual sexual arousal, activity, availability, or threat. And of course those things are going to matter, a lot, to a woman who encounters them.But the presence of the machinery doesn't really say anything about what it means to the individual to see the image. For that, you have to ask them, and the analysis excluded studies that did that. And you have to look at concrete responses - what people actually do - which are easy to dismiss as socially conditioned, but patterns of response can also be biologically influenced.An analogy: All adult humans have the machinery in their bodies to give milk. But a scientist who suggested that men's failure to nurse their babies was socially conditioned neglect would be laughed out of the room.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!