20/06/03
Men are Sexually Primitive
In a recent article posted on MND, Dennis Prager
says that, The
differences between men's and women's sexual natures are enormous. The
objectification of the female body that is natural to the heterosexual male (as
is the objectification of the male body to the homosexual male) is so devoid of
emotional or intellectual meaning as to be unfathomable to women.
But Dennis is exaggerating somewhat - and putting the customary misandric spin on
male sexuality.
it seems to be true that the visual pathways
of the brains of men are more closely linked to sexual arousal than are those of
women, but this does not mean that these are the only pathways involved!
For example, just because men can seemingly
get turned on sexually merely by looking at pictures or at female striptease
artists, it does not follow that the visual
aspects of such things alone are sufficient to promote satisfying orgasmic peaks to
such voyeuristic enterprises.
Indeed, witness the phenomenon of so-called
'sex-addiction' which, allegedly, causes men (and many women) to peruse for
hours on end salacious images on the internet.
If these visual images are so
attractive and so 'sexual', then why are orgasms associated with them not
immediately forthcumming?
If these visual images are so
attractive and so 'sexual', then why are orgasms associated with them not
immediately forthcumming?
And if orgasms materialise at all, why do they
take so many hours?
Clearly, vision alone is not enough.
Well. The truth of the matter is that even the
lowly human male has far more to his sexuality than the excitement of his visual
pathways.
And there is usually a whole library of mental
paraphernalia that accompanies anything more than the mildest degree of arousal.
Yes. Even in men.
And when Dennis says that, "The
objectification of the female body that is natural to the heterosexual male ...
is so devoid of emotional or intellectual meaning," he also seems to forget that
men have brains that are just as complex as those of women. In fact, they are
probably more complex, which is why men vary so much more than do women.
When people really get turned on by art or by
music, are they just blandly responding to the bald stimuli that impinge upon
their senses - with absolutely no accompanying
"emotional or intellectual meaning" deriving from them?
No. They are not.
So, why does Dennis assume that when men
respond to the visual display of women - or even to pictures of them - they are somehow devoid of such things?
Men were designed to be deeply affected and moved by the visual signals
emanating from women. And if men ever stopped being so affected by such signals
- sexually or otherwise - women would end up having a very hard time indeed.
And this reminds me of a great piece by Rich
Zubaty. It was written in 1996, but it could have been written yesterday.
... America
has no culture because America has no male culture - because America's men are
being raised by women. Rich Zubaty - 18 min
... However, there is just one teeny teensy point with which
I would disagree.
Rich says that ...
Men are overwhelmingly, biologically, attracted to a shapely female form.
It's not learned. It's DEEP biology -- how a bare breast or curved behind grabs
our attention like a train whistle in a tunnel.
the shapes, contours and colours of Chinese women are
very different from those of women found in, say, Africa.
But the notion that this overwhelming attraction to the female form
is, 'not learned', and is, therefore, entirely genetic seems very
unlikely. After all,
for example, the shapes, contours and colours
of Chinese women are very different from those of women found in, say,
Africa. But both types of women are just as attractive to the men who
were
brought up with them.
And, here in England, the thin waif-like female forms of recent decades that
men nowadays find so attractive would not have gone down well in Victorian
times, where far plumper women were considered to be the most desirable.
So, No. The shapes and forms that turn men on are not likely to be genetically wired into their
brains. And what men find attractive will have very much to do with the various
experiences that impinge upon them both as children and as adults.
And being kissed and cuddled by one's mother at an early age will surely have
something to do with it.
it is probably because mothers are usually young
females that men remain attracted to young females.
Indeed, it is probably because mothers are usually
young females that men remain attracted to young females.
The principles governing the development of men's tastes in women are
probably not far removed from those that pertain to their likes and dislikes of
particular foods.
And so, for example, while there are probably genetic mechanisms that help to
create strong basic desires both for food and for physical intimacy, the particular
objects that are actually chosen and preferred by individuals when
it comes to satisfying these desires will be related far more to their
prior experiences with them rather than to their genes.
If you are brought up in India, it probably does not take very long before
you are salivating at the thought of a strong curry.
And for many Englishmen like my good self, a good cup of tea is almost worth dying for.
Such things must therefore be to do with upbringing,
expectations and prior experiences, not genes.
And given that the brains of men are
just as complicated as those of women when it comes to absorbing upbringing,
expectations and prior experiences, it is surely highly unlikely that men are
more sexually primitive than women - as Dennis Prager would suggest.
|