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?

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.

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! 

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.