Re: Women's Brains React Surprisingly Quickly to Erotic Images

Viking wrote:

Interesting article, and one of the very rare ones in gender biology
that aren't utterly feminist-slanted (see the links on the below Fox
News page: "Study: Human Sperm Deteriorate With Age", "Fickle Females
Force Male Fish to Be Flashy", "Study: Men Will Risk Everything to
Impress Women", "Study: Women Can Predict Good Dads, Good Lovers on
Looks Alone", "Study: Sexy Attire Works Against Businesswomen", etc).


Erotic images elicit faster and stronger electrical responses in a
woman's brain than do images of any other sort.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html

Women's Brains React Surprisingly Quickly to Erotic Images Wednesday, June 14, 2006
By Robert Roy Britt

The finding might not sound groundbreaking, but researchers did not
expect such rapid responses to erotic images, which seem to involve
different circuits than the processing of other images.

"That surprised us," said study leader Andrey Anokhin of the
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. "We believed
both pleasant and disturbing images would evoke a rapid response, but
erotic scenes always elicited the strongest response."

The test involved 264 women who were shown 55 images of water skiers,
snarling dogs, partially clad couples in sensual poses and other
scenes.

Electrodes on the subjects' scalps measured brain activity.

The signals begin firing long before a subject was conscious of what
she was seeing, the researchers reported recently in the journal Brain
Research.

Erotic images elicited neuron firing within 160 milliseconds — about
20 percent faster than occurred with any of the other pictures. The
stimulation then branched out to other brain regions in all cases, but
to different regions for erotic images than for others.

Previous research indicated men are more aroused by erotic images
than women are, so Anokhin and his colleagues expected women to
respond with lower levels of brain activity compared to men.

"But that was not the case," Anokhin said. "Women have responses as
strong as those seen in men."

The monitoring method, called an electroencephalogram (EEG), was used
because it could distinguish tiny time differences.

But it can't pinpoint specific brain locations where the activity
occurs. Such accuracy would require similar studies using MRI
(magnetic resonance imaging) and PET (positron emission tomography)
scans.

The next question on Anokhin's mind: whether or not the human
prefrontal cortex contains special neurons tuned for sex.


This is not at all surprising.

About twenty-five years ago I developed a theory which at the time would not have been acceptable; but over the years a number of evidences have appeared to give the idea some creedence.

I was reading a lot of psychology at the time. The basic question was why did we ever start wearing clothes? The old original sin nonsense was not going to fill the bill at all. Other animals do not wear clothes why don't they have original sin too. And no, the religious crap won't do it either.

From an evolutionary point of view we have three things to do: a) feed ourselves; B) defend ourselves against the environment; C) reproduce.

But once we reacher the agrarian stage by which we can pretty well control our food production, rather than *find* it, we can feed ourselves with good reliability. Once we settle in one place (an inevitable outcome of agrarianism) we can build stockades to protect ourselves from most animals. Now feeding and protection are easily satisfied what is left. It is no surprise looked at from this point of view that societies almost invariably have degenerated to a base hedonism. It is exactly what our nature should be expected to do. If we are well fed; and safe from the environment we should be shagging like there is no tomorrow.

But shagging endlessly is a problem for a growing social order that requires that people do some work in order to keep the society going. Crops have to be tended in the broadest sense of the word; stockades have to be maintained, etc., etc., etc. But females who are receptive to male sexual interest almost all the time would now be a distinct distraction from the work that needed to be done.

I theorised that clothes were introduced to reduce sexual stimulation and so the tendency to bonk almost continuously. This also led to why it is that female sexuallity is seen as a social problem: the female can *** endlessly. While us poor men have to recover our ability after orgasm the female merely moves on to the next available partner.

This was the state of knowledge so far as I was aware twenty-five ears ago. Since then a number of evidences have arisen.

For example, female circumcision. In the early eighties I did not know about female circumcision but when I did come to hear about it, it made eminent sense. This would reduce the female's pleasure, and therefore the motivation, to more and more sexual activity on her part.

Then I found a few years ago that a female can orgasm upto 140 times per hour; while the recorded maximum for a male is 17. This again would indicate that the female of the species is so intensely sexual that men are mere amatuers when it comes to getting it on.

Under such circumstances it should be no surprise that throughout recorded history the female has been branded the Whore of Babylon; the serpent condemned to crawl the earth on her belly, and has had to be controlled by sometimes quite extreme methods. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to maintain an ordered society if the femle of the species was forever up for it. At any time; any place; with any one!

Let us move toward the present.

A few weeks ago some research found something similar to the article heading this thread. While men responded to specific images of attractive human females; females would respond to much less specific data such as other animals bonking.

In other words, females are far more up for it than males. Females are sexually ready for it, far more easily than males too. The slightest sign of nookie and she is raring to go. (This, also raises serious questions about the true nature of rape (if there is such a thing) and particularly false rape allegations).

Then a few weeks ago I heard about some chimpanzees who *** as a casual way of saying Hi! It is as casual as humans shaking hands when they meet.

Now we find more evidence to the effect that females are far more responsive than males. Again entirely consistent.

This all makes emininent evolutionary sense. Once the female has selected on appearance or physical performance she gets as much cum as she can from as many suitable males as she can in order to get the best she can.

Some male animals have built in defence mechanisms to stop the female mating with someone else shortly after them. Again what we see here is that the female is so promiscuous (not a criticism) that males develop means of defending their sperm from competitor males; or, at least, giving their sperm a better chance of inseminating.

The absurdity of all this is that if female sexuality were unleashed from the social binds, rape would not exist because no female would ever say no to the opportuinity and us guys would have more fanny than we would know what to do with.

Now let us hear the girls slagging off this analysis.

D.

--
=======================
Women have spent the last
30 years proving that men
have been right for the
last 30 centuries.
=======================
.