Women aren't aroused visually?

Question

Why is it that some people assume women are not sexually stimulated visually? I've stumbled across some people saying in the past that women are only emotionally and physically stimulated and that visually aren't that responsive-- Or even that for a woman to enjoy sex, it must have an emotional level.

I, personally, find this very untrue and know many woman who agree with me. We like to look at pretty things too! I've almost driven off the road in the past to stare at a (gorgeous) topless running man just like any guy may have done for a woman.

What about Romance novels (as one poster pointed out)? That is neither emotional nor physical, and it is pretty much porn. Since romance novels are so popular, doesn't that throw out the "physical/emotional only" myth right out the window?

Is it just me? Or are there other women that argee with me?

Well, I'm not saying women are or should be ONLY visually aroused. I mean, I want much more than looks in my man. But that a woman can become arroused by looking at a good man (not to say, then, that she's going to jump his bones. That could be her choice, though I may think it a bit unwise).

Good point, perhaps I should've said "erotic literature" instead of romance novels. Theres a big difference. My mistake.

Jonmcn-- You don't like me? But you don't even know me...

I love you Trixie! Both you and Oracle have brilliant minds that know how to put a "lack wit" in his place. ^_^

Answer 1

Oh this question has me in stitches, thank you.

When I was a young lad, back two decades ago now, when the punk scene was getting old, the new romantics were starting to look a little weathered, and a great big synthesis occurred between Punk and Hippy and New Romantic. It was called Goth, and back then it meant nothing remotely close to what it means now.

In this new wave of music, embraced by drop outs and students at the time, women would dress, well, not unlike the picture you are wearing, and we guys were in tight leathers, PVC, big hair, make up, you name it.

The visuals were just stunning both ways.

With absolute concrete certainty women were tripping on those visuals. Like no other place or time I've seen. Half naked guys on the dancefloors in the seedy dark with the bass thrumming, sweat, hair, makeup, pheremone so thick you could taste it.

A far cry from the ubiquitous repressed "man in suit" images that bombard us. Think Braveheart crossed with Bladerunner.

The morality was loose, women initiated encounters as frequently as men, the arousal was obvious, clear and acted upon.

Now I am older and I have seen the contrast. Men do not do good work at being Candy for women. They don't for the most part know what works. Images in erotica perhaps take a good shot at making a play for female visuals, but it isn't done well.

Not with the expressivity and creativity that most women deploy with such acumen to tantalise us men. With every accoutrement and wile at their disposal.

Yes, yes all the psychological stuff is true, the sense of humour, the slow insidious drip of being a good decent guy date by date.

But when you have seen and been a party to the monstrous, hedonistic lust of a scene reveling in its capacity for expression, no doubt remains, women are visual.

Answer 2

Isn't is crazy how people can throw around terms like "normally distributed" and "adrenal hyperplasia" like they know what it means, but still use it where it doesn't fit?

Normal distribution means within three standard deviations of the mean (or average). That means something has a 99.7% chance of occurring. It's a probability, therefore it doesn't fit with human behavior. Behavior must be operationally defined so that it can be marked as either occurring or not (a success or a failure). Therefore, HAVING the behavior can not be defined in standard deviations, but the LIKELIHOOD of the behavior occurring can.

As for adrenal hyperplasia, it doesn't fit into this scenario either. Adrenal hyperplasia effects the physical aspects of the sex organs and is presented at birth. It has very little to do with sexual arousal. In other words, what is effected is what makes us different between male and female, and not the kind of stimulus (visual, etc.) that causes a person to become aroused.

The term "That is also just you" does not make sense when it is used against more than one person.

People who study animal behavior should know better than to make these mistakes.

Answer 3

Y'know, I was pondering an answer to that question about why women don't like porn. All I could think of was, "geez, I can get more out of an erotic R-rated sex scene than a badly light xxx-rated porno any day."

So I guess women ARE visual as well. I personally prefer my sex scenes to be light with something other than dollar store fluorescents and y'know, maybe put a bit of money into something other than the girl's chest.

I'm just sayin'. And I don't read romance novels. Blahhhhh...

Answer 4

You have to excuse Jonmcn, he sees life through a test tube and makes scientific generalisations and bullies people with terminology.
Adrenal hyperplasia is chiefly a rare and congenital disorder, so I don't think it will be THAT distributed Jon. This does not say much for explaining why you would be suggesting that women's sex drives are being affected by it (the most notable feature is overgrowth of genitalia).

Don't bully people unneccesarily.

Jon: I know that people come out with outrageous claims, but isn't explaining better than haranguing? Some people haven't had the benefit of a scientific education and that leaves an imbalance to be sure, but said people still feel the need to look for answers. I can either explain or belittle, but only one has the desired effect.
If you berate, people see science as deux ex machina, rather than the rational solution that it is.

Answer 5

The thing that makes me want to upchuck most is the assumption that women get their kicks out of romance novels.
C'mon guys, you're not really serious are you?

Anyway, running men? Yeah have seen some real fine looking men jogging the streets where I live. And it's not like the guys are models, they're just the average sweaty guys.
As for mainstream porn, it's not too bad actually, there are some fine males in that too, it's good to see them getting down to business.
Wonder if it's all the masculinity that's the attractant?

Answer 6

Ah men boys whom ever...........I'v been a M.C./D.J. for the past 15 years in several clubs of the exotic kind. Women have the same animal lust and the ability ta break yer ahhhhhhhhh heart. Looks that kill.
A moot point to bring out romance cover's. Ya don't need a book ta get that ah what is ya all lookin 4 again oh ya.......A phat house, A phat wallet and a fat ahhhhhhhhhpocket haha.
Just teasin'
To all the ladies. Hope ya where good ta' Santa don't hurt em. He's gettin old. Season's greeting all HOHO haha

Answer 7

Show a woman a big diamond and you'll know what visually stimulated REALLY means. j/k I think part of the difficulty for men is that women's arousal patterns aren't quite as noticeable. With men all it takes is looking down at his pants and you know whether he likes it or not. With women you'll have to guesstimate the level wetness down in Virginia. Since Virginia is so hard to get to, the answer remains a mystery.

Answer 8

I just got done posting that men are more visually stimulated.
Weird.
If i go to a strip club and see a bunch of greasy men thrusting there loins at me I do not get turned on, i laugh. Men on the other hand are more likely to get turned on by a female stripper.
Romance novels stimulate your mind by words not sight.
I am personally more likely to want to make out with a guy if he is interesting as a opposed to gorgeous. I guess everyone is different. There have been studies done on this topic and there is also many women who disagree with it.

Answer 9

My psych professor told our class about a research study that was done on visual arousal. He said that men and women in the study were shown pictures of people engaging in sex, and researchers tracked the movement of these people's eyes as they were shown the pictures. Apparently, believe it or not, men looked first at the women in the pictures' faces....women, however, looked first at the "sex act" itself...(use your imagination here). The result of the study showed that women are just as "visual" as men, and more inclined, in fact, to be visually drawn to male and female sex organs and sex acts.

I can't say I'm surprised by what the results of the study- except for one thing: I would have guessed that the men would have looked at something other than the women (in the pictures) faces first. That was kind of surprising.

Answer 10

I'm just as visually stimulated as I am emotionally and physically. They're the three amigos of my libido. I've been married along time and my hubby's a great lover, has great passion for life, but is as hot as hell.....By the way, it's been awhile since I read a sexy, trashy dirty novel. Think the local library would have em??ha.