Is there scientific proof that men respond more to visual stimuli than women?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by wegs, Jul 15, 2013.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I think often people get too caught up in what the "science of attraction" is.

    We all come equipped with some basic programming, based on extant evolutionary drives. The desire to be close to one's parents, followed by a desire to leave those parents. The urge to copulate. Attraction to specific characteristics (usually secondary sexual characteristics) that generally denote ability to bear/protect progeny.

    However even these basic drives are not universal, as demonstrated by homosexual and asexual people, as well as people who exhibit a wide assortment of fetishes for shoes, feet, uniforms, leather etc. There is nothing "wrong" with these people - they just have different basic programming.

    So even the basics aren't common. Then you add on the social conditioning we are not conscious of but greatly influences our desires, and then you add on the conscious decisions we make to not get involved in a relationship, or avoid person X because they do drugs (or don't do drugs!) or look for person Y because they have a lot of money or their mother approves of them.

    Add all this up and it's nearly impossible to predict attraction/stimulation to any degree of precision at all. Which is good in my book; would be a far more boring place if everyone was into the same thing. It can be fun to study large groups for trends, and indeed groups (say, clothing manufacturers) are willing to spend huge amounts of money for data that says "women are more often attracted to men who wear blue suits." But it's important, IMO, to keep in mind that such stats are true only on average and rarely accurately describe individuals.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,321
    maybe, maybe not....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. turk Registered Member

    Messages:
    66
    Why would you think that I discount the findings? I'm not disputing the findings, but rather your use of them as irrefutable proof of anything.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Based on this study...the findings would be irrefutable. You would have to conduct a separate study to refute it.
    Hope that clarifies my point better.
     
  8. turk Registered Member

    Messages:
    66
    you don't need to conduct a study in order to refute the assumptions and conclusions of another study. A study isn't meant to be irrefutable proof of anything. What did this study prove (irrefutably) exactly?
     
  9. schema Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
    Personally, I think both sexes respond equally to visual stimulation. Attraction can depend on the symmetry of the person's face, which i think both sexes pay attention to. I tend to look at the hips of a woman first. Maybe that makes me a perv, but i think it has to do with instinct. Maybe I am just instinctualy bound to see if a potential mate has child-bearing hips.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013
  10. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Go read the study

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Lol @ the word "institutionally" :-}}

    No not a perv. It makes you human.
    I like guys with a muscular build so we like what we like.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Study or no study!!
     
  11. schema Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
    haha! my spell checker has failed me!!
     
  12. turk Registered Member

    Messages:
    66
    I'm just gonna pretend that you got the point i was trying to make.
     
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I did get your point but did u look at the study? It's a worthwhile read.
    There is nothing offensive about science which is why I like it.
    Ppl can make errors but science can't.

    @ schema...lol saw your edit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. turk Registered Member

    Messages:
    66
    Yes, I looked at the study. It was about what I expected. Science is not a being or entity. It can't do anything at all. However, scientists who use science as a tool to investigate questions, can and often do make mistakes. What we know changes all the time. That's why dogma of any kind should be avoided, even the scientific kind.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Re the study linked:

    I don't trust researchers to choose visual stimuli for women or men in general - and especially not based on Western or US women's self reports of arousal. There are very complex layers of social conditioning between self reports (especially by women) and physiological response or status in this matter, and the social conventions are at unusually large variance with what careful research there is has shown to be more likely the case.

    They only compared response to solo nude presentation in "model" poses of the opposite sex, for example - women respond to the same sex more than most men, women are less often put off by the presence of other women in a scene as men often are by other men, women's visually mediated response to opposite sex bodies keys far more on visible signs of arousal (erections and so forth) than men's does, western and US women are often quite honestly unaware of their own degree of physiological arousal, the exact poses involved matter a great deal, and so forth.

    From the description, it sounds as if none of these factors, or the many others complicating the issue (race, say, or other resemblance to the subject's relatives) were taken into account. So other than noting the differences in processing focus within the brain for these particular stimuli, I'm not sure what we learned there.
     
  16. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    bolded for emphasis, by me

    you make excellent points there. at first blush, the 'evidence' seems to point in the direction of being ...i don't want to say iron clad, but firm. firm evidence. but, you are very right to notice this. because that could skew the results horribly one way or the other, frankly. lol

    you gave me a new perspective. and you did it without throwing out the study like it was complete bunk.
    so thank you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page