bonduca

You are not supposed to be impressed. You are supposed to realize that I think you are foolish. And I must defend these fellows, they were nice people, but not for me. They wanted committments I was not willing to give. I am not proud of myself, in fact I prefer not to dwell on it. I mentioned it within the context of your stereotypical assumptions.

luvluv, prominent psychologists quoted in popular magazines MUST be infallible. Truly, they must. Just as Freud was, once. But perhaps we'd better not go there.

LadyShea, Bree, and I have all told you that we, as actual women do not fit your stereotypical notions. Cling to them if it makes you feel better, but we will neither disappear in a puff of smoke nor dissolve in girlish tears.

Now go curl up somewhere with a nice Harlequin paperback.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

luvluv

Anyway, we were supposed to be talking about porn.

Viti

luvluv...so studies you have read but can't site should make all of us feel we are fooling ourselves? We don't really feel what we feel because it contradicts an article in a magazine? What is the name of the "love=sex" hormone? Where were the study subjects chosen? Was it random, or women seeking psychological help already? How many subjects were involved? Can they measure this hormone with a blood test?

Thomas McPhee if you are lurking, please give us your thoughts (luvluv, Thomas is a test or so away from his MD specializing in Psychiatry)

Viti

And this is about porn, you asserted that porn actresses cannot possibly do that because they want to or enjoy it....you assert that the majority are acting out their emotional problems using sex. We are refuting your assertions with real life experience. Sure, it's anecdotal...but so far so is your basis for your conclusions. Site us some case studies and we'll look at them, at least I will.

luvluv

We aren't talking about one article. We are talking about the majority of evidence that has been collected on human sexuality since it has been the subject of scientific study. You three ladies may be exceptions to the rule. But the rule stands. I hope all of you are happy in the decisions you have made. You seem to have found happiness in a commited relationship and I am glad of that fact. But this discussion is not about you, it is spefically about women in a very different situation, pornography, and about women in general so far as science can ascertain.

Do you agree with this statement: In general, women attach more emotions to the sex act than men?

Viti

Yes luvluv...I concede that many women attach emotion to sex because they were TAUGHT to.

Will you concede that a woman can go have sex as her job, then return home to a loving committed relationship? Do you agree that emotion can be compartmentalized and separated?

luvluv

I don't have the article with me but I will have it tommorow.

bonduca

No. In general, women are discouraged from expressing their sexuality, and men are provided with more encouragement and visual stimulation. Women are encouraged to be sexual only when in "love," men are encouraged to roam and be sexual. That does not indicate a natural predisposition. Even if it did, your magazine articles do not make you qualified to preach to us regarding our own sexual choices.

As for this "research," it was once said that women who wanted careers were denying their feminine side and would become lesbians. *leers at Bree*

It was also said that women suffering from emotional upset or migraine headaches had their uterus clanking about loose inside their bodies, and it had better be yanked out straightaway.

"Research" can be flawed.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

luvluv

"Yes luvluv...I concede that many women attach emotion to sex because they were TAUGHT to."

So it has nothing to do with the fact that biolgically, women are more selective in choosing their mates? It has nothing to do with the fact that, through millions of years of evolution, women have had no protection against pregnancy: a state that would have historically leaves them defenseless and unable to provide for themselves without the protection of a male. It has nothing to do with the fact that said female would have had to be sure that this male was not only capable of providing for and protecting her, but that he was interested in doing so? And do you think all the accumulated emotional and biological momentum in that area has just dried up and blown away in the wind because some guy invented the birth control pill? I believe it is possible that human emotion has not caught up with human technology.

"Will you concede that a woman can go have sex as her job, then return home to a loving committed relationship?"

Not in any marriage I would bet money on lasting. Would the woman be comfortable with the man doing the same?

"Do you agree that emotion can be compartmentalized and separated? "

No. Further, the attempt to supress your emotions proves that something is wrong. If you cannot be fully emotionally present in something you are doing, chances are you shouldn't be doing it.

"In general, women are discouraged from expressing their sexuality, and men are provided with more encouragement and visual stimulation. Women are encouraged to be sexual only when in "love," men are encouraged to roam and be sexual. That does not indicate a natural predisposition."

Tell that to a biology professor. I mean, lets just look at nature. Lets look at the animals we are supposed to have evolved from. Are animal females promiscuous or selective? Are animal males promiscuous or selective? And is that a result of "animal culture"?

""Research" can be flawed."

And it usually is when you don't like the results.

Viti

Our closest evolutionary relatives, Bonobos, are a very promiscuous species (both genders). Multiple partners, same gender sex, group sex AND they are less aggressive towards each other than other apes. hmmm

<a href="http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html" target="_blank">Bonobos and sex</a>

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>