Well, I never did suggest that we´d never maked generalisations ever. They do come in handy at times, and sometimes it´s impossible to have a discussion without them.
But I´m not myself comfortable with the generalisation that women don´t get turned on by watching pictures and don´t have sex without any emotional attachment.
Well, as you've said, it doesn't apply to you, which is fine. I never said it applies to every single woman. And as for the second part of your sentence, I specifically said the opposite. Let's revisit what I said:
My opinion is that they are at least somewhat different. Do women ever just want what Erica Jong called a "zipless fuck"? Sure. But because of either biology or society or some mixture of the two, women most of the time to look for an emotional connection. Men often look for emotional connections, too, of course, but they can do without them more easily.
You might not be familiar with the Erica Jong reference, but "zipless fuck" essentially means sex without emotional attachment.
I never said no woman ever has sex without emotional attachment. Hell, I've done it myself. I said women TEND to place emotional attachments as a priority, and more so than men. To say that this is not true of you does not prove the generalization incorrect.
People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.
Not only do I disagree, but I can't imagine what would make you think this. It doesn't even make sense from an intuition standpoint -- why would sexuality and turn-ons be totally unrelated to gender? All kinds of behaviors are related to gender. Why would sexual attraction -- which is clearly more, well, related to gender than a lot of other things that are related to gender -- be the exception?
Here's one vast generalization regarding sexuality and gender. Women tend to be attracted to men, and men tend to be attracted to women. Am I saying that's ALL that ever happens, that nobody is ever attracted to members of their own gender, that gay and bisexual people do not exist? Of course not. Am I saying society should be structured -- as it sort of is now, actually -- in such a way as to ignore the existence of gay and bisexual people? Nope. Not at all.
Still, is it totally off-base and inapplicable and useless and incorrect to say that, in general, most women are attracted to men and vise versa? Well, I guess you can try to argue that if you like, but I don't see the point.
Now, if you want to present evidence that proves the generalization WRONG -- say, a study of sexuality that shows that women and men are actually attracted to members of their own gender in about equal numbers but that those feelings are suppressed by societal norms -- then, fine. I'd be interested in that, and would be happy to change my views if the evidence proved sufficiently convincing.
But to say no such generalization can be made whatsoever, true or not true, because people's sexual behavior and attitudes are so completely different from one individual to the next that you can't make any kind of statement that applies the majority of members of the group -- then I would disagree.