Milovana.com

Incubo wrote: As for fetishes...I haven't seen any specific research on the subject, but I'd bet that the female tastes are just as wide and varied as ours.

The men, on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms “category specific” ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.

All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. 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. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos.

Incubo wrote:I would take that to mean that the repression I spoke of earlier isn't quite gone yet. These women were apparently reporting what they thought they were supposed to like, not necessarily what they really do.

Heathcliff wrote:

Incubo wrote:I would take that to mean that the repression I spoke of earlier isn't quite gone yet. These women were apparently reporting what they thought they were supposed to like, not necessarily what they really do.

Possibly, (I'm quite confident that "repression" still exists in some sectors) but that seems like a too simplistic explanation. The fact that women on the whole were aroused by a wider breadth of things physically then they were mentally seems to speak more of the difference between purely physical/subconscious arousal and mental/conscious arousal.

Incubo wrote:
As for fetishes...I haven't seen any specific research on the subject, but I'd bet that the female tastes are just as wide and varied as ours.

Heathcliff wrote:Found the study, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magaz ... ire-t.html

Human wrote:

Incubo wrote:
As for fetishes...I haven't seen any specific research on the subject, but I'd bet that the female tastes are just as wide and varied as ours.

Are they ? How would we explain their absensce on boards such as this then ?

Human wrote:Are men kinkier than women ? Women consume less porn than men presumably because they are not as visually oriented. But it seems that they are present in far fewer numbers on other outlets such as this forum. I have also been led to believe that women have as much of a sex drive as men. Is that false ? And/Or do women have far fewer fetishes than men ?