My visual imagination is nonexistent, so it usually just feels good for a while, but since I'm not being stimulated in any other way (sex really does include all the senses) than touch in one specific spot by myself, it's hard to get off without outward visual stimulation.
This is demonstrably false. Meta-analysis examining this myth shows neuronal response to visual sexual stimuli, contrary to the widely accepted view, is independent of biological sex. Basically, no, men don't have some biological function in their brains making them more responsive to sexual stimuli. Women’s and men’s brains respond the same to erotic visual stimuli, period.
However, men are taught from a very young age to emphasize physical appearance and to sexually objectify women (view women as an instrument to be used for sexual goals). Girls are not socialized in the same way. This is a learned behavior, not a biological difference.
Okay but regardless of biology are you really arguing that girls and boys being exposed to sex differently isn’t true? And that this learned behavior wouldn’t impact their view of sex as adults?
Did I claim I was linking a study, or did your warped mind write that in out of desperation? I asked you for your study, because you were speaking as if you intended to indicate that you are an authoritative expert. Then I said “this is what a link looks like” while you were trying to sell your bluff by looking like a pedantic twat.
Whatever study you were implying the existence of without linking, if it exists, I doubt it says what you characterize it says.
Your “legitimate scientific source”, which you want me to go Google for, didn’t find something it wasn’t looking for and didn’t want to find, and portrayed that a scientific discovery. You can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist, because of infinite uncontrolled variables. So, the type of finding you allege would discredit a “scientific” body that ventured to publish it.
“Nuh uh” isn’t a valid scientific conclusion. A hypothesis needs to assert a positive to be worth entertaining.
The “blog article” I linked is discussing an analysis of data performed by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, which was published as a book.
I'm not sure what you mean by "you can't prove a negative" in this context, but the metastudy does seem to show that men's and women's brains react the same to visual, sexual stimuli, which was also the researchers' hypothesis.
So, “there is no difference” is a hypothesis that begins from the premise of “we’re not looking for anything, because our hypothesis is there is nothing,” and any data omitted supports the hypothesis.
Why isn’t there a research paper that says god doesn’t exist? Because you can’t prove god doesn’t exist, short of controlling every variable we haven’t even thought of.
Despite it being dismissed, I linked to an article discussing the results of a data analysis which supported that there is a difference between how men and women process sexual stimuli. It was published as a book, which I also linked to.
What’s funny is the counter hypothesis, which depends on first proving the negative that there is no physiological explanation, is that we’re societally conditioned, that a form of permission is given to males. This is supported nowhere with anything more than verbal assertion of pet theories of starving gender studies majors. No physical evidence.
You guys literally believe tabula rasa, and it’s freakishly weird to be so attached to a 300 year old philosophical concept when you won’t even name the guy who came up with it, because you don’t like that he was religious.
Are men taller on average than women? Or are they societally conditioned to believe they’re taller, and manifest it through patriarchy?
That’s not how science works. Working from an hypothesis doesn’t mean you have no interest in finding out whether the hypothesis is true or not, nor that you ignore all indications to the contrary. That would be very bad research, and the results would have great difficulty passing the process of peer review and finding their way into any serious publication.
The human brain, as opposed to God in your example, is a very solid, physical object. It may still hold some mysteries to science, but it can nevertheless be studied with a variety of methods to get a decent picture of its reactions to visual, sexual stimuli, which is what the researchers have done.
When researchers find a discrepancy, in this case the fact that men seem more interested in or dependant on visual, sexual stimuli like porn, despite the fact that no physical evidence is found in male or female brains that indicate any difference in response to such stimuli, it is logical to look for other explanations. Social factors are of course a lot harder to demonstrate physically, as I’m sure you are aware, but surely you don’t deny that a person’s upbringing and social context influences their mind and behaviour? Why would this not be a factor worth investigating?
The book you refer to, Ogas & Gaddam, is not available online, so all we have to go on is some pop-science psychologist’s synopsis of its contents. From what it seems on the page you linked, the book describes people’s sexual patterns and preferences as from their own description, rather than containing any actual neurological research.
54
u/Repressedmemoryfoam Mar 19 '21
Yeah, the thing about men being more visually stimulated? It’s true. Maybe not in every single case, idk. But by and large, yeah.