From

Meta Study: Reactions to a Study on Female Sexuality

by Alice Andrews

I read this on the Yahoo Evolutionary Psychology forum, and posted several messages. I found myself in a fairly heated debate with some pretty big and small fish in the field (pool), via private e-mails, as well as on the forum.

*Study suggests difference between female and male sexuality

EVANSTON, Ill. —— Three decades of research on men's sexual arousal show
patterns that clearly track sexual orientation — gay men overwhelmingly become
sexually aroused by images of men and heterosexual men by images of women. In
other words, men's sexual arousal patterns seem obvious.

But a new Northwestern University study boosts the relatively limited research
on women's sexuality with a surprisingly different finding regarding women's
sexual arousal. In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually
aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal
pattern.

____________________________
*The researchers, J. Michael Bailey, Meredith L. Chivers, Gerulf Rieger, and Elizabeth Latty have made their paper "A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal" which is in press (Psychological Science), available.

What follows are several of my posts (if you follow the above link it will only give you access to original posts if you're a member of the Yahoo EP forum), along with a post from Liza May, who gave me permission to 'publish' her post here.

From: "Alice Andrews"
Date: Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:54 pm
Subject: Bailey backwards?

When it comes to these issues, I generally take an EPish view (with a nod to 'Nurture' always); am pretty much of an essentialist, and though sympathetic to a social constructionist position, basically find some of SC's arguments flimsy.... However, isn't it possible that since Woman has been objectified sexually, etc., that we as women have LEARNED to do it as well? That is, because it is NOT in our nature to 'get off' on things VISUALLY relative to men...that when it comes to the visual, we have learned to adopt the male point of view? John Berger, in WAYS OF SEEING writes: "Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men ansd women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object–and most particularly an object of vision: a sight." It seems to me that when it comes to fantasizing with emotions, stories, feelings, etc....most heterosexual women will not be able to get sexually aroused about women. Is this just because we've been socialized into these heterosexual patterns, and that, as Bailey is suggesting, what in fact turns us on visually is our essential nature? Or, again, is it that Bailey is a bit biased in his methodology; that his method to understanding our essential sexuality is really not appropriate because women's sexuality isn't about visual stimuli in the first place? Perhaps he's really just studying the affects of a dominant ideology/gender...and what happens to certain systems due to plasticity. On the other hand, it very well could be that women are essentially bisexual in nature more so than men. Or that we all are bisexual, as many have suggested (more bonobo than chimp?), but that women are less 'defended'. Though it is true that 'homosexual' men who deny their homosexuality respond to male erotic stimuli, it may also be true that there could be men who appear heterosexual, define themselves as such, and even respond to erotic stimuli as such...but that somewhere, somehow (in brain, I suppose, and probably hypothalamus) are 'really' homosexual–they just have better defenses against it. (Apologies to Foucault.) And, of course, what would that mean? What would it mean to have a 'gay brain' but to have learned not to get aroused by same sex erotic stimuli? Is it possible? This seems related to the researchers' study and seems to support the most simple observation re our culture's response to gay women/gay men: that it is harder to be a gay man than it is a lesbian. And, of course, that enjoying the beauty of one's own sex is easier for the fairer one. My own bias is that there IS an essential and fundamentally different character to women and men's sexuality. But I see it falling down EP lines rather than these 'biological' ones. It's funny to me how I never questioned these visual erotic stimuli studies before...But it now seems clearer than ever that it is just one side of the picture. There's another story. Cheers, Alice Andrews

From: "Alice Andrews"
Date: Sun Jun 15, 2003 9:08 am
Subject: Bailey Backwards comment demeaning to women?

Yikes! Dare I post again? Re the Bailey study suggesting a difference between male and female sexuality, and my comment (see at bottom after this post), someone wrote me that it was "a strange approach, unduly demeaning to women." That was it. So I wrote him back the following: (But I'm curious, did others find my comment demeaning as well?) As a woman, I'd have to disagree with you. As I wrote, I always took these visual erotic stimuli studies as prima facie the 'answer' to sexual orientation/gender preferences, etc. And perhaps with men, this may be so. I am not suggesting that women are not aroused by visually erotic material. I'm not even saying it's not (somewhere) a little bit in their nature. I believe I wrote: because it is NOT in our nature to 'get off' on things VISUALLY > relative to men...that when it comes to the visual, we have learned > to adopt the male point of view? I used the word relative, and I think it's critical here. According to the posted article on this study, Bailey said: "The fact that women's sexual arousal patterns are not all predicted by their sexual orientations suggests that men's and women's minds and brains are very different....This shows that the sex difference that we found is real and almost certainly due to a sex difference in the brain." Yes, I would agree. There is a sex difference in the brain, but not necessarily the one he and his students found. There may be lots of reasons why women are turned on by images of women–and maybe, but not necessarily, none of them have anything to do with their bisexuality or their desire to have sexual relations, etc. with a woman. It could be that our still male-dominated culture has saturated us with the female form to the point that we see Woman-as- Sexy, as I was suggesting in post. And women may just be better at fantasizing and stories, etc. and may be able to better project themselves (than men) into scene, or imagine they are the very woman– or women!–that Bailey thinks is turning them on. Maybe, just maybe, men are not as capable of this. Again you might think demeaning–this time to men! But a lot of psychological literature, I bet, could back me up on that male/female difference. (Women more empathic, etc.) But I stand behind my main point. That the assumption that sexuality can be measured in terms of visual erotic stimuli is just one side of the picture. Sexuality is so much richer (to state a sorry platitude)...And to say that women may be bisexual because something happens to their genitals when they look at erotic images of women, seems like a huge leap. We don't know why they are feeling that way! Rather than demeaning to women, I feel my point is rescuing women from this narrow understanding of sexuality. Perhaps the EP view of women appears reactionary, in terms of what her 'deep' desires are, etc...But, I think much of it is true. (And, of course, women can learn to go against their deep algorithms/modules.) Point being that EP and other fields can show us why there are these morphological gender/sex differences (biologically, in terms of visual system versus emotional, for example) and also why these differences were adaptive. And why a sweet talking musician (or a brilliant scientist) turns us on even if he's skinny, more so than the hunky, hulky dude who works out every day at the gym. (I'm referring to the visual versus aural/emotional aspect here. But this topic alone could get into the flexibility of women's desire, class questions, etc.) Doug Jones in a paper called "Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny" (1995) writes: "Ford and Beach (1994) summarizing evidence from nearly 200 cultures, conclude that although there is a great deal of variation in standards of attractiveness, 'in most societies the physical beauty of the female receives more explicit consideration than does the handsomeness of the male. The attractiveness of the man usually depends predominantly upon his skills and prowess rather than upon his physical appearance." My students would say, "You have to do research to find this out?" It is a cliché about the general workings of men and women (yes, there are many, many exceptions and yes we are all rather plastic and flexible), but nonetheless there is truth here. Honestly, if you want to understand women's sexuality, you might want to talk to them about their fantasies and hook their bodies up to these erotic stimuli measuring devices (talk about demeaning!!), or see what voices arouse them below. My understanding of this is that women, far more so than men, have a particular sensitivity to the male voice–one that perhaps can even 'read' hormone levels, health, developmental stability, etc. Ask most any woman and she will tell you that it is a man's voice, not his nakedness, that 'does it' for her. I do think that by and large we are more aural than visual. And more invested in emotions, connection to power and security, ad infinitum. At the risk of sounding like a Nerve Personal profile: Beholding a (male) beautiful lover's naked body is lovely, hearing him whisper sweet, intimate words is arousing. Best, Alice I'm willing to believe, by the way, that all women are bisexual–but if I go down that path, men will be right there too.

From: Liza May
Date: Sun Jun 15, 2003 8:16 pm
Subject: RE: [evol-psych] Bailey Backwards comment demeaning to women?

Note: Liza May's responses have been formatted in bold.

Alice Andrews wrote: > Yikes! Dare I post again? Re the Bailey study suggesting a difference > between male and female sexuality, and my comment (see at bottom > after this post), someone wrote me that it was "a strange approach, > unduly demeaning to women." That was it. So I wrote him back the > following: > (But I'm curious, did others find my comment demeaning as well?) I didn't find it demeaning in the least. I did find it inconsistent with my experience, however. You wrote: > It could be that our still male-dominated culture has > saturated us with the female form to the point that we see Woman-as- > Sexy, as I was suggesting in post. Doesn't make the least bit of sense to me, Alice. I - (and my three sisters, two daughters, and a life filled with women best friends, women's support groups, women's studies, women's conferences ... years and years as an outspoken feminist deeply involved in the women's movement) - do see that women are sexy. Sexy to men, yes. Beautiful, sexy creatures, period. (Well, those who *are* sexy, that is. Those who aren't, aren't.) But ... ... this is *not* the same as saying that women are sexually arousing *to me.* Which they aren't. I do not find, as you've said above, the female form arousing, and neither, I don't think, would my (straight) female relatives or friends. *Men's* bodies - yes. Men's shoulders, arms, their hairy chests, their hairy other parts, men's muscles, everything about men's bodies - yum, yum! Gorgeous! Sexy! Most definitely. Not only gorgeous and sexy the way Rodin's "Adam" is gorgeous and sexy, but sexually *arousing* - to me - as a woman. You wrote: > And women may just be better at > fantasizing and stories, etc. and may be able to better project > themselves (than men) into scene, or imagine they are the very woman– > or women!–that Bailey thinks is turning them on. Maybe, just maybe, > men are not as capable of this. Again you might think demeaning–this > time to men! But a lot of psychological literature, I bet, could back > me up on that male/female difference. (Women more empathic, etc.) I don't know whether females are better story-tellers. This would surprise me, since I would expect men to have the edge when it comes to anything having to do with the display of verbal skills, courtship skills, and so on. Particularly story-telling. I would have guessed that story-telling might have been one of the earlier talents to have emerged as a neat tool for "getting into a girl's pants" (or whatever it was EEA girls were wearing and boys were trying to get into in those days). Women may be more empathetic, like you say. But I don't see that story-telling and empathy should have anything to do with each other necessarily. Moreover, from what I know of female sexuality, there just *isn't* a whole lot of fantasizing of the kind you're describing above. Especially compared to men, who do quite a bit of it it, seems. You wrote: > Perhaps the EP view of women appears reactionary, in terms of what > her 'deep' desires are, etc...But, I think much of it is true. (And, > of course, women can learn to go against their deep > algorithms/modules.) Maybe I haven't read the right things, or heard from the most objectionable people yet, but so far I haven't been offended or seen anything that appears reactionary to me. The theory rings SO true. It "feels" so obvious, so solid and grounded in ordinary, long-recognized human behavior. It feels like a great relief, like the first theory about human psychology that makes ANY kind of intuitive, or scientific, sense. So first, I'd have to say that I don't find the EP view reactionary. On the contrary, I find it deeply liberating. And second, I would disagree that women can learn to go against their deep algorithms/modules. Maybe somewhat, maybe with huge energy and difficulty. Maybe. Or maybe not. Certain things I think are hard to "go against" and sexual desires and behaviors are probably one of those "things." You wrote: > Point being that EP and other fields can show us > why there are these morphological gender/sex differences > (biologically, in terms of visual system versus emotional, for > example) and also why these differences were adaptive. And why a > sweet talking musician (or a brilliant scientist) turns us on even if > he's skinny, more so than the hunky, hulky dude who works out every > day at the gym. (I'm referring to the visual versus aural/emotional > aspect here. But this topic alone could get into the flexibility of > women's desire, class questions, etc.) I think you might be mixing up variables here, confusing the different *criteria* for choosing mates (for men it's appearance, for women it's status), with the way male and female brains process information (visual for men, aural for women). In other words, to use your example, a woman is turned on by the "skinny musician" instead of the "hulky dude" not because she is "aural/emotional" rather than visual, but because she is attracted to fitness indicators that display a healthy brain *more* than she is attracted to indicators that display a robust body. Why? Because it isn't as critical for her to know - like a man needs to know - whether this potential mate is in his child-bearing years. Her decision is not based on that, but rather on the quality of his brain, a quality important to her because it will affect this man's (and her children's) future status, and because it tells her whether he's likely to stick around to invest in the children. These are things she'd be looking at regardless of whether or not she was visual or aural. > Honestly, if you want to understand women's sexuality, you might want > to talk to them about their fantasies and hook their bodies up to > these erotic stimuli measuring devices (talk about demeaning!!), I wouldn't find it demeaning, just embarrassing. I think I'd be laughing so hard I'd botch up the measuring device. And I think I'd find it, um, frustrating. Unless my husband came along too, and we went out for dinner and dancing afterwards. You wrote: > My understanding of this is that > women, far more so than men, have a particular sensitivity to the > male voice–one that perhaps can even 'read' hormone levels, health, > developmental stability, etc. Ask most any woman and she will tell > you that it is a man's voice, not his nakedness, that 'does it' for > her. I'd have to disagree again. And I'll take the liberty of speaking for the women with whom I've discussed this subject before (and I've just asked my daughters and two of my sisters this question, just now this very moment). No, it's not men's voices - although men's voices are alright sometimes. But if I had to choose between voices and naked bodies, it's DEFINITELY the naked bodies I'd choose. Men's sexy, studly, manly, fully male, allllll man, naked bodies. Very good. You wrote: > I do think that by and large we are more aural than visual. And > more invested in emotions, connection to power and security, ad > infinitum. I wouldn't say we're more invested in emotions, or "connection to power." Not sure what you mean, really, by "invested." But men CERTAINLY have emotions! And plenty of them! Is there a way to measure how "many" emotions a person has? If there is, I'd be stunned, confused, if it appeared that men have fewer emotions than women. It wouldn't make sense, for one thing. And from what I can see, men certainly *seem* to have just as big a share of fear, anger, disgust, sadness, joy, as we women do. All the men I know do (we also have two sons, along with the aforementioned daughters). Maybe you're confusing "venting" with "having" emotions? We women have a bad habit of *venting* our emotions all over the place whenever we feel like it, especially all over men without their permission (and becoming furious when they don't feel like listening). Maybe you're mistaking the free expression of emotions in day-to-day life for a greater abundance of them? And, you say women are more connected to power? I don't see that Alice. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "connected to" but almost anything having to do with power seems like it'd be just as much in the realm of men's concerns as of women's. > However, isn't it possible that since Woman has been objectified > sexually, etc., that we as women have LEARNED to do it as well? I do not think that women have been "objectified." I find this a most ridiculous, inaccurate, deliberately misleading term, and I always have. All throughout the heyday of the women's movement I thought it was an unethical and dangerously incorrect word, a buzz word which distorted the whole picture of what goes on between the sexes, further confusing relations between us. And it certainly doesn't fit with EP theory. I also don't believe that women could learn to be visual to any great degree more than we are to begin with, save an accident to that part of the brain. I don't think plasticity works like that, does it? But there are people here who will be able to answer that question thoroughly. You wrote: > What would it mean to have a 'gay brain' but to have learned > not to get aroused by same sex erotic stimuli? Is it possible? This > seems related to the researchers' study and seems to support the most > simple observation re our culture's response to gay women/gay men: > that it is harder to be a gay man than it is a lesbian. And, of > course, that enjoying the beauty of one's own sex is easier for the > fairer one. I think it's harder to be a gay man than a lesbian because this is a man's world. So, it's harder to become the "lesser" thing than it is to become the "greater" thing. It's harder to put yourself down a rung on the status ladder (a man becoming more "womanly") than to put yourself up a rung on the status ladder (a woman becoming more "manly."). As far as enjoying the beauty of one's own sex - I think this is more an issue of a female brain being wired to be acutely aware of the importance of appearance and beauty. We pay attention to it, because it's what matters most. > My own bias is that there IS an essential and fundamentally different > character to women and men's sexuality. But I see it falling down EP > lines rather than these 'biological' ones. I don't understand this last paragraph, and I'd like to see what you're saying about the difference between EP and biology. So I hope you'll explain. Liza

From: "Alice Andrews"
Date: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Bailey Backwards comment demeaning to women?

Liza, Again, thanks for your thought-provoking, critical, and fun responses. I'd like to try to respond to you, even though it may take a while: I had hoped that by making the claim on an EP Yahoo Group message board (I've been a member for a while but have only posted once–last year–about pheromones) and by stating in the very beginning of my message that I generally took an EP view, that epistemologically, I wouldn't have to make certain claims, for brevity's sake, and that I could assume that I didn't have to back up certain statements with standard EP arguments. But I see maybe I should/need to. And I need to be more clear. I suppose the most illuminating thing about this question–and my message/position in particular, was that there are a myriad of views...ranging from 'it's demeaning to women,' to 'no it's not demeaning, but that's not my experience,' to 'yes it's my experience,' to Jungian interpretations and EP/anthropological evidence. First of all, I stand behind my position regarding the differences between men and women regarding sexuality and 'the visual.' As I've said twice though, I am not saying women are not visual or that they don't derive pleasure (even erotic pleasure) from gazing at the male form. But let's look at some of the more blatant and obvious and (perhaps stereotypical, though I think, nonetheless true) phenomena concerning 'the visual.' A man can very easily and happily masturbate to pornography...Whether it's on the Internet or in a magazine. How many women can easily and happily do this? Or want to? Or DO? And if they do, did they when they were adolescents before they 'learned' to do it? You and I alone must know hundreds of men who, when they were pre-pubescent and going through puberty, would sneak Playboys and such into their rooms, without wanting a soul to know, and risking trouble from parents. Why? Because they really, really fancy looking at women's bodies and get off doing so. Shocker! And EPists know exactly why this is the case, of course. But can you even picture a (heterosexual) prepubescent/adolescent girl sneaking in porn to masturbate to? I sure can't. I've never met a woman who did or does. But I sure have known some men who did and do (and some who don't, too). My whole point about fantasies and stories and emotions is that, contra men who use images to get turned on and get off, women hardly do–dare I say, don't. Women (we) might need to conjure up a particular man (or men) who we have some feeling/affect/desire for. (I'm not saying women don't have other types of sexual fantasies.) But there's a real difference here. You wrote: I - (and my three sisters, two daughters, and a life filled with women best friends, women's support groups, women's studies, women's conferences ... years and years as an outspoken feminist deeply involved in the women's movement) - do see that women are sexy. Sexy to men, yes. Beautiful, sexy creatures, period. (Well, those who *are* sexy, that is. Those who aren't, aren't.) But ... ... this is *not* the same as saying that women are sexually arousing *to me.* Which they aren't. Yes. Of course. I feel similarly! BUT...according to Bailey, if he hooked you up, you might perhaps, surprisingly, be aroused by these beautiful, sexy women, who YOU thought you were only admiring, or perhaps comparing yourself to. This is why I am softly suggesting that it is possible that a part of our 'essential' selves has been perhaps distorted, (to put it in the negative–though I don't think it's so bad), in the face of Bailey's evidence.... I still maintain that it's quite possible that it is NOT in our nature to get off on things visually RELATIVE to men...but that maybe we have learned to adopt the male point of view. You wrote: *Men's* bodies - yes. Men's shoulders, arms, their hairy chests, their hairy other parts, men's muscles, everything about men's bodies - yum, yum! Gorgeous! Sexy! Most definitely. Not only gorgeous and sexy the way Rodin's "Adam" is gorgeous and sexy, but sexually *arousing* - to me - as a woman. I love this! I only get it partly, though. It's only recently that I have begun to get the visual. The sensual–NOW THAT I GET! Question is: Are you talking about that? Touching. Hearing. Smelling. Seeing. Feeling (as in emotions–sorry Damasio). We're all so different in our responses, I guess. But the question again is, what is most essential? My feminine impulse is to go ahead with personal disclosure because it feels right and also to mirror your style because doing so feels right. But what I've learned from man's world–my male models–is that it won't be respected (if this gets posted). And who needs to know my personal business, and furthermore, who cares? Nonetheless, here goes: I am a heterosexual woman. Have always felt extremely so. In the great continuum of Sexuality, feel I'm at the far end of Heterosexuality. (I've questioned this many times, wondering if it was reaction formation, but alas–or not alas, I think it's real.) I have said I tend to have an EP/HBE perspective. Though I think there is some general universal human nature, I also think there are real differences between people. (Many EPists do too, I believe.) Not all women, and not all heterosexual women are the same. As Rushton points out in that book he sent many HBES members (RACE, EVOLUTION & BEHAVIOR), there are different kinds of men. Different mating strategy types. Cads and dads. R-strategists and K-strategists. Men who are caricatures of the typical EP male, spreading their seed far and wide. And men who are a little more 'cultured' but who obviously fall within the range of what it is to be Male–in fact our culture prizes dads over cads, of course. So I think there are different kinds of women. A good read on all this is Anne Fausto-Sterling's SEXING THE BODY, if you haven't read already. Hormonal/neuorological model is key to me, but I am also, as I said earlier, sympathetic to social constructionist theory of gender and gay theory, etc. So. I'm left-handed. And sometimes I feel very different than other women. Some (but not all) studies have shown that left-handed women may have gotten more androgens prenatally and that many turn out to be lesbians. (I'd like to assume that everyone knows I know about these studies, but again, I now feel like I have to qualify and explain, etc.) Anyway, if that's the case with me, that my brain was androgenized, well, it just made me like men a lot...and have a lot of hyper-feminine qualities/traits, too, it seems. (I also have hyper-masculine qualities/traits as well, like musical ability. Brain lateralization theory probably accounts for all of this.) So I have never understood the visual thing and perhaps just have assumed most women fell into that category as well, within a range. (I still think it.) That's not to say that women who are visual are somehow more masculine. My question about women who are visual (stimulated erotically by male bodies, etc.) is: is it nature or nurture? I think I have LEARNED to become more visual and derive pleasure from it. But I can feel and know it is not my nature. Perhaps the left-handed thing is key, though. Left-handers are typically musical and not as visual (though good at spatial stuff, I know). One more thought here: I think there are three types of men and women (5 varieties altogether). 1. Hyper-masculine AND hyper-feminine men and women. 2. One side of spectrum types-either masculine with little feminine-side male, or feminine with little masculine-side female. 3 Androgynous types. I wrote: > And women may just be better at > fantasizing and stories, etc. and may be able to better project > themselves (than men) into scene, or imagine they are the very woman– > or women!–that Bailey thinks is turning them on. You wrote: I don't know whether females are better story-tellers. This would surprise me, since I would expect men to have the edge when it comes to anything having to do with the display of verbal skills, courtship skills, and so on. Actually, neurological/biological evidence supports that women have the edge on language. But I wasn't talking about storytelling or storytellers, or the display of such. I was talking about what turns a woman on. A picture of a naked man in a magazine will not do it for me. Not even if I fantasize a story about him. My point about stories was this: 'It seems to me that when it comes to fantasizing with emotions, stories, feelings, etc....most heterosexual women will not be able to get sexually aroused about women.' So, when a woman fantasizes to get off, she will probably, more likely than not, conjure up stories, feeling, emotions, etc. You wrote: Particularly story-telling. I would have guessed that story-telling might have been one of the earlier talents to have emerged as a neat tool for "getting into a girl's pants" (or whatever it was EEA girls were wearing and boys were trying to get into in those days). Sure. And music too, as Manning and many others have pointed out. You wrote: Moreover, from what I know of female sexuality, there just *isn't* a whole lot of fantasizing of the kind you're describing above. Especially compared to men, who do quite a bit of it it, seems. I'm trying to make a distinction between what is sexually arousing to a woman and what is to a man. I am trying to understand Bailey's findings. I am trying to make the point that Bailey's underlying assumption about what Sexuality IS, may be too reductive. (And that's particularly odd coming from me, since I'm often reductive.) I'm talking about EMOTIONAL fantasizing as a more arousing event for women than images. (And yes, I realize that fantasy is, in part, internal images, and yes, real images can conjure up emotions.) Anyway, yes, you're right, the male/female distinction re fantasy is quite clear. I even make a similar point that you're making, in my novel, TRINE EROTIC: "She had read somewhere that men have sexual fantasies nine times a minute. IF ONLY I WERE A MAN, she thought." But I think also the character of men's and women's fantasies are qualitatively different–again perhaps in terms of what is predominant (visual versus emotional [and cognitive?]. I wrote: > Perhaps the EP view of women appears reactionary, in terms of what > her 'deep' desires are, etc...But, I think much of it is true. (And, > of course, women can learn to go against their deep > algorithms/modules.) You wrote: Maybe I haven't read the right things, or heard from the most objectionable people yet, but so far I haven't been offended or seen anything that appears reactionary to me. The theory rings SO true. It "feels" so obvious, so solid and grounded in ordinary, long-recognized human behavior. It feels like a great relief, like the first theory about human psychology that makes ANY kind of intuitive, or scientific, sense. So first, I'd have to say that I don't find the EP view reactionary. On the contrary, I find it deeply liberating. Good! Again, I'm an EP/HBE supporter. I feel similarly, most all of the time, and argue with SC theorists often about this. I merely wrote that because I was being attacked for being 'unduly demeaning to women." And really, EP is on my side about what I'm trying to say. And it CAN have a reactionary/anti-feminist ring to it. Though I don't believe, at bottom, EP is either reactionary or anti-feminist. So. It makes no sense to have inherited a set of algorithms designed to be AS visual as men. Yes visual. But not so much as men. Start with hunter/gatherers. Who needs better visual system? The men or the women? Then, of course, all the gender-difference questions and all of Buss's findings. Of course men would have inherited modules and perhaps have more developed visual systems because men who DID were better at discerning hip-to-waist ratios, etc. And men who got turned on visually by signs of high estrogen (full lips, big eyes, full breasts, etc.) left more genes. Or it's that 'supernormal' theory, blah, blah. I feel like all this is just basic stuff which I didn't need to touch on, really. You wrote: And second, I would disagree that women can learn to go against their deep algorithms/modules. Maybe somewhat, maybe with huge energy and difficulty. Maybe. Or maybe not. Certain things I think are hard to "go against" and sexual desires and behaviors are probably one of those "things." I absolutely do NOT agree. And I don't think a lot of EPists would either.. One example is rape. Some (but not all) EPists believe that there's a module for rape. But just because one has a module for such a thing does not mean one has to act on such a thing. (I dislike having to write this, to me it seems obvious–but people a lot smarter than I, like Pinker, DO...so I guess I can too.) Anyway, this question has been posed in philosophy forever. And Freud and others have made the point as well, using various terms: superego versus id, etc... I think man (and woman) CAN go against our deep, dark, atavistic side...because we have a beautiful forebrain/prefrontal cortex, because we are human and rational, and because we have free-will. I wrote: > Point being that EP and other fields can show us > why there are these morphological gender/sex differences > (biologically, in terms of visual system versus emotional, for > example) and also why these differences were adaptive. And why a > sweet talking musician (or a brilliant scientist) turns us on even if > he's skinny, more so than the hunky, hulky dude who works out every > day at the gym. (I'm referring to the visual versus aural/emotional > aspect here. But this topic alone could get into the flexibility of > women's desire, class questions, etc.) You wrote: I think you might be mixing up variables here, confusing the different *criteria* for choosing mates (for men it's appearance, for women it's status), with the way male and female brains process information (visual for men, aural for women). In other words, to use your example, a woman is turned on by the "skinny musician" instead of the "hulky dude" not because she is "aural/emotional" rather than visual, but because she is attracted to fitness indicators that display a healthy brain *more* than she is attracted to indicators that display a robust body. Why? Because it isn't as critical for her to know - like a man needs to know - whether this potential mate is in his child-bearing years. Her decision is not based on that, but rather on the quality of his brain, a quality important to her because it will affect this man's (and her children's) future status, and because it tells her whether he's likely to stick around to invest in the children. These are things she'd be looking at regardless of whether or not she was visual or aural. Liza, I know all this...But you couldn't know I do, I suppose. That's foundational; I was merely piggybacking on another point...or adding to it, with the thing about aural/emotions. What I meant by emotions, in that instance, in fact, had everything to do with all those things that a woman feels about a man regarding his status, intelligence, skills, etc. That is, the psychological/affective component that is tied to a woman's intentional (in philosophical sense) position to a man. "Mmmm, yum, my lover is cute and has nice shoulders...but he is also a moral philosopher (which implies many of the traits that Buss might argue women find attractive in men, say), and has a fairly decent income, etc." And in fact, the music thing, as Manning points out, has probably a lot to do with hormonal indicators. Note I didn't say singer. I was trying to make a number of points all at once...I probably shouldn't have tried to, though. Perhaps due to my temporal problem/restriction. (Not lobe!) You wrote: > Honestly, if you want to understand women's sexuality, you might want > to talk to them about their fantasies and hook their bodies up to > these erotic stimuli measuring devices (talk about demeaning!!), I wouldn't find it demeaning, just embarrassing. Good point! I think I put that in there, again, because I was writing to a man who called my message demeaning–and I was trying to put things into perspective. And I think, at some level, the reductive approach to understanding sexuality IS a bit demeaning–certainly more so than my comments. I wrote: > I do think that by and large we are more aural than visual. And > more invested in emotions, connection to power and security, ad > infinitum. You wrote: I wouldn't say we're more invested in emotions, or "connection to power." Not sure what you mean, really, by "invested." But men CERTAINLY have emotions! Of course. You wrote: And, you say women are more connected to power?

I meant in the EP sense...That women are connected emotionally to signs of power, status, etc. in men. I wrote: > However, isn't it possible that since Woman has been objectified > sexually, etc., that we as women have LEARNED to do it as well? You wrote: I do not think that women have been "objectified." I find this a most ridiculous, inaccurate, deliberately misleading term, and I always have. All throughout the heyday of the women's movement I thought it was an unethical and dangerously incorrect word, a buzz word which distorted the whole picture of what goes on between the sexes, further confusing relations between us. And it certainly doesn't fit with EP theory. Hmm...I think, on the contrary–it DOES fit in with evolutionary theory. Who is doing the gazing?????? Men!!! And we know why!!! Signs of youth, fecundity, fertility, etc. etc. WE are the objects. I've gotten used to it. Sometimes like it, sometimes don't, and sometimes don't care. However, I also sometimes try to fight the Woman-as Surveyed/Man-as-Surveyor paradigm in subtle ways (because I have free-will) and appreciate that men want to fight it sometimes, too (because THEY have free-will). Also, when I used the phrase 'objectified'....I was using it in its more general sense. Hence the Berger quote that "men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at," etc. I actually did not mean it in its pejorative feminist-era sense. Woman-as-object can be negative, positive or neutral. Really! You wrote: I also don't believe that women could learn to be visual to any great degree more than we are to begin with, save an accident to that part of the brain. I don't agree. You wrote: I don't think plasticity works like that, does it? I think it does!!!!!!!!!!!! I think the question regarding our deep, inherited, essential (hard-wired) nature versus learned stuff is critical. Can our brains change? Yes. Can we become more visual? I suppose so. HOWEVER...here's an undeveloped thought about this: I think there may be a difference in how it FEELS. If a person is sensitive enough, maybe they can feel the different layers. They can discern what feels like the depth and core of what all their successful ancestors have passed down to them in their cytosine and adenine and guanine and thymine...They can feel the difference in intensity of desire between nature and nurture. But who knows? This is getting into questions of Self, executive functions, identity, etc. and I really am afraid at this moment to get into it! I wrote: > What would it mean to have a 'gay brain' but to have learned > not to get aroused by same sex erotic stimuli? Is it possible? This > seems related to the researchers' study and seems to support the most > simple observation re our culture's response to gay women/gay men: > that it is harder to be a gay man than it is a lesbian. And, of > course, that enjoying the beauty of one's own sex is easier for the > fairer one. You wrote: I think it's harder to be a gay man than a lesbian because this is a man's world. You say this but don't think women are objectified? Hmm. You wrote: As far as enjoying the beauty of one's own sex - I think this is more an issue of a female brain being wired to be acutely aware of the importance of appearance and beauty. We pay attention to it, because it's what matters most. Indeed. I agree. I wrote: > My own bias is that there IS an essential and fundamentally different > character to women and men's sexuality. But I see it falling down EP > lines rather than these 'biological' ones.

You wrote: I don't understand this last paragraph, and I'd like to see what you're saying about the difference between EP and biology. So I hope you'll explain. I hope some of what I wrote answers this question. If not...Oh boy! (girl! woman! and man!) Bestest wishes, Alice

Afterthoughts (not posted):

I do think it's possible that women may be more 'erotically plastic' (Roy Baumeister's term is 'erotic plasticity'). And I am not arguing against this good point:

"Sexuality comprises a more biologically encapsulated system for men than for women, and is less permeable to other beliefs and cultures. In evolutionary parlance, sexuality is more modular for men than for women." Pg. 215

-From Garth Fletcher's The New Science of Intimate Relationships (2002)

In one of my messages to the forum, I wrote the following:

I'm left-handed. And sometimes I feel very different than other women. Some (but not all) studies have shown that left-handed women may have gotten more androgens prenatally and that many turn out to be lesbians.... Anyway, if that's the case with me, that my brain was androgenized, well, it just made me like men a lot.

I have since done some more reading on the left-handed connection to brain androgenization, and it looks like there may be different kinds of left-handedness: Genetic and 'pathological.' (Pathological referring to the androgenization of the fetal brain.) Based on the fact that my father was left-handed (but forced to become right-handed), and that the nail bed of my left thumb is squarer than the right (a sign for genetic left-handedness), and that my second digit (index finger) is actually longer than my fourth (ring finger) [a sign of low testosterone/high estrogen, according to Manning–and in fact, many lesbians seem to have the reverse–longer fourth digit than second], I'm going to conclude that my brain was probably not androgenized during fetal development, and that I'm a genetic left-hander.

It might be interesting to compare the sexual orientation/identity/drive, etc. of genetic versus pathological left-handed women, as well as to that of right-handed women versus both kinds of left-handed women.