Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')

[Front-Ranger]

I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
The whole thing about women always craving an emotional bond before engaging in sex..*cough*
Believe me, sometimes women, too, just want to screw.

Women and men aren´t really all that different.

You bet, friend!

[Kerry]

I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
The whole thing about women always craving an emotional bond before engaging in sex..*cough*
Believe me, sometimes women, too, just want to screw.

Women and men aren´t really all that different.

Yep, I agree. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes. I know of at least one lesbian friend acquaintance who admits to visiting female prostitutes. And it ain't for the "emotional bond,"  from what I understand.     

[serious crayons]

Women and men aren´t really all that different.

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.

Here's a test. How many women here are easily aroused by a magazine photo of a naked man or woman? For myself, I'd say it's pretty close to never. Not that I represent all women, obviously. But I would guess that there's a reason the vast majority of magazine pictures of naked people, of either gender, are intended for men. A two-dimensional image of a stranger, howeve attractive, does not do it for me.

I'm much more likely to find, for example, a movie character sexy. Why? Because then there's the illusion of an emotional connection. Watching the movie, I feel like I "know" something about the person.


BTW, I don't see this as a moral judgment about either men or women. It just is what it is.

[Monika]

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.

Here's a test. How many women here are easily aroused by a magazine photo of a naked man or woman? For myself, I'd say it's pretty close to never. Not that I represent all women, obviously. But I would guess that there's a reason the vast majority of magazine pictures of naked people, of either gender, are intended for men. A two-dimensional image of a stranger, howeve attractive, does not do it for me.

I'm much more likely to find, for example, a movie character sexy. Why? Because then there's the illusion of an emotional connection. Watching the movie, I feel like I "know" something about the person.


BTW, I don't see this as a moral judgment about either men or women. It just is what it is.

I don´t recognise myself in that. I often find pictures sexy as well as characters in a book. And how many women don´t have pictures of male models flaunting their abs and whatnot on their walls?

We seem to have different experiences regarding this. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that we shouldn´t make any generalisations about what women supposedly want or not want at all?

[louisev]

Very interesting, Laura.

I´ve interpreted that to mean that Ennis was admitting to himself that he had sex with a man. After all, sex can be just that...sex. But an embrace..especially a sexless one as the dozy embrace implies something else...tenderness...feelings. I don´t think Ennis was ready to admitt that he was holding a man in an embrace that wasn´t a prelude to sex.

This I very much agree with.  And when  he embraced Jack, he was hemmed in by fear of what others would do to him if they saw him do so (the scene where he pulls away from Jack when a truck goes by on the road); the look that might show on his face "You ever get the feelin that people are watchin you, an they KNOW?", because he undoubtedly went about in intense paranoia after grabbing Jack and kissing him in the stairwell which was pretty much right out in public.  So it was a balance between the denial of his need and desire to embrace Jack as his loved one, and his terrible fear that he would be killed for doing so, not that he personally was disgusted by it.

[serious crayons]

I don´t recognise myself in that. I often find pictures sexy as well as characters in a book. And how many women don´t have pictures of male models flaunting their abs and whatnot on their walls

Well, again, I said I obviously do not represent all women. Of course many women feel differently -- different women feel differently about practically every subject. But, as it happens, I don't have any pictures of male models on my walls, and off the top of my head I can't think of any woman I know who does. At the moment, the only friend I can recall who had a photo of a nude man on his wall was a gay man. The picture was by the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who this friend of mine had once known (Mapplethorpe was dead by then).

We seem to have different experiences regarding this. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that we shouldn´t make any generalisations about what women supposedly want or not want at all?

Geez, I sure as hell hope that's not a lesson to be learned from this. Without generalizations about human behavior there would be no way of progressing in the field of psychology. Forget about treating mental illness or developing helpful new psychotropic medications. For that matter, forget about developing any new product whatsoever that is designed to appeal to women, if the ruling philosophy is going to be we shouldn't make any generalizations about what women want or don't want.

Nope, sorry, I'm definitely not ready to throw generalizations out with the bathwater.

That's why I used the word "test" in my post. I expected there would be different reactions.

For me, the lesson to be learned from this is that human behavior is complex, and different people are different. But then, that's a lesson I already knew. There are generalizations that can accurately apply to almost every aspect of human behavior, but of course each one has myriad exceptions. The next step is to figure out what factors create the exceptions.

For example, here's a generalization: many children who have terrible family lives (abuse, neglect, homelessness, drug-addicted parents, whatever) do poorly in school. Some, however, do well in school despite living in nightmarish circumstances. Why is that? Some psychologists now are turning their attention to these remarkable resilient kids, in hopes that by figuring out the reasons for their success they can help kids who are less successful.

[Monika]

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.

And I don´t personally see the need to make generalisations in this case. People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.

[louisev]

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.

And I don´t personally see the need to make generalisations in this case. People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.

Buffy, I believe there are some significant cultural differences between the US and western Europe as regards social and dating behavior, and I have noted this many times living in Europe and talking with young people in their 20's and 30's, gay, straight, college students, and teens who are just starting out their social/love lives.  My conclusion is that the US, in particular (even distinct from nearby Canada) is an extremely repressed culture overall, and follows and attempts to enforce much stricter sex roles, particularly with regard to women, and that affects their behavior.  Not Taliban level, but keep in mind that the Puritan Separatists did found the first settlements of Europeans in North America and they represented the most extreme religious conservativism of Europe from the 17th century.  A mere 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US whatsoever - it's a very different place!

and yes, that's a great big generalization but it is provably reflected in our indecency standards on television programs, film ratings, etc. etc. etc.

[serious crayons]

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.

[serious crayons]

Buffy, I believe there are some significant cultural differences between the US and western Europe as regards social and dating behavior, and I have noted this many times living in Europe and talking with young people in their 20's and 30's, gay, straight, college students, and teens who are just starting out their social/love lives.  My conclusion is that the US, in particular (even distinct from nearby Canada) is an extremely repressed culture overall, and follows and attempts to enforce much stricter sex roles, particularly with regard to women, and that affects their behavior.  Not Taliban level, but keep in mind that the Puritan Separatists did found the first settlements of Europeans in North America and they represented the most extreme religious conservativism of Europe from the 17th century.  A mere 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US whatsoever - it's a very different place!

and yes, that's a great big generalization but it is provably reflected in our indecency standards on television programs, film ratings, etc. etc. etc.

I mostly agree with this. Although I would argue that sexual behavior of women vs. men is not entirely the result of cultural norms and immigration patterns. I believe there are biological influences, too.

One reason to suspect this is that women in few if any societies behave in a LESS restricted manner, sexually, than men. Yes, I know the girls  in Samoa, for example, were not held to the same standards that girls are in the U.S., let alone Afghanistan, but I don't think Margaret Mead claimed they were more sexually active than males in their society (admittedly, I haven't read her book). And yes, I know female bonobo monkeys are very, um, sexually free-spirited, but again are they any more so than male bonobos? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the sexual behavior of Western European women is indistinguishable from that of Western European men.

But the vast majority of women around the world -- oops, there's another generalization! -- are held to, and tend to conform with, stricter standards of sexual behavior than the men in their societies.

If there were no genetic components to this, one would assume that different societies showed a range of behavior evenly spread across the board -- that is, in some cultures women would be more restricted, in some women and men would be the same, in some men would be more restricted. But as far as I know there's either few to none in that last group. Which suggests there's some hardwiring involved.