I heard a story about a study concerning a technique of essentially talking yourself out of being hungry. I can’t recall what they called this mind over matter technique – I will post it if I recall. Anyway, the results piqued my interest. Apparently a little more than half the people in the study were women, and the results were extraordinarily consistent and drawn completely across gender lines. Every participant in the study learned the technique well, and every person stated that it worked wonderfully. Then they performed MRI’s. Every man in the study, as I said, stated that the technique worked and they were no longer hungry after practicing it. The results of the MRI concurred – there was a drastic reduction of brain activity in the hunger and impulse control areas. Every woman in the study, as well, stated that they were no longer hungry after practicing the technique, but in every woman the MRI showed different results. According to the brain, there was no difference in hunger levels. About a week later someone showed me this article in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=2&em This study showed sexual 9and other stimulating) imaged to men and women and measured their physical sexual responses and compared them to what they said they felt. Men’s responses overwhelmingly agreed. Straight men said they were aroused by images of lesbian sex, hetero sex, exercising women… And the results of the plethysmograph agreed. They said they were not aroused by images of gay sex, bonobo sex, nude men… Again, the results of the plethysmograph agreed. Gay men said they were not aroused by nude women, but were by homosexual sex… You guessed it, the plethysmograph agreed. I found this fascinating. I have to say, though, that I am not at all surprised by the results. I wonder what those here think may be the implications of these studies and the convergence of this data - if there is any.
am I the only one to draw this conclusion but does it seem like women are excited more by women in general than men, unless those men are with women? ...maybe I am getting this study analysis wrong
Yes I do believe it does say it. Here is a chart I assembled based on the result of this study. I did not feel in all of the required spaces, as I ask you to do so. Please fill them in using the words used in the study in relation to the groups of women and men. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It says they showed less excitement physically than they claimed. It says nothing about how much excitement they showed, as compared to men.
forget about men, we all know what men think and what they feel. Its same thing. This chart is about women.
Well, maybe they should have carried out the study in babies. Since heterosexuality is a social conditioning, babies haven't as yet been 'conditioned' and should therefore provide more credible results. As for this study, I think they were just trying to prove the obvious.
Still, they only talk about their objective responses as compared to their subjective responses. It says nothing at all about how they responded to women as opposed to how they responded to men - except for the exercising woman compared to the strolling man. You can't just pick and choose words to throw into a farcical graph - you have to actually read them in context.
do you for some reason skip this sentence? "During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more."
You have some reading comprehension problems. less excitement than their vaginas indicated It is only referring to the discrepancy between what they said and what their bodies indicated.
Although draq is crazy, he does have a tad bit of a point. We can almost use the "women's reports for a single straight male" as a sort of base control. I'm pretty sure you can assemble a chart using that method.
