There have been many explanations for why this difference in sexual excitation might exist. Maybe men are expressing an unconscious misogyny. Taught to objectify women, they use them as props in their sexual fantasies. But this analysis is very abstract, and relies heavily on a Freudian interpretation to buttress its political claim of gender oppression. The popularity of porn consumption by gay men would seem to argue against this theory. One would have to claim that gay men have internalized misogyny and then incorporated it into their objectification of other males.
Maybe men are just objectifiers by nature, while women are more relationship oriented. Women tend to prefer the romance of seduction, something difficult to express in pornographic imagery, more suited to the written word. The extremely graphic nature of most porn - the close-up shots of penetration and thrusting, seem almost clinically devoid of any pretense of emotion aside from carnal lust. This would make sense from the evolutionary psychology view of men as spatially oriented hunters, and women as relationship oriented mothers and gatherers.
But what if it simply comes down to a feature of biology and culture? The penis, especially when uncircumsized, is designed for rapid climax during intercourse. Men typically reach orgasm in 5-10 minutes - much to the dismay of their thus unsatisfied female partners. Women generally take twice as long. Of course, this has everything to do with the quality of lovemaking. Female anatomy makes orgasm via intercourse alone much more difficult because the act of penetration stimulates the male more than the female. This discrepancy can be overcome, but only through creativity and experience.
So what might the physical anatomy of men and women have to do with porn? Well, it may have something to do with the anatomy of the brain. Sexual orgasm is probably the most pleasurable state one can achieve. It makes sense, then, that the brain would learn to associate that feeling with imagery. This has been found to be the case with addiction, where images of drugs are associated and with increased desire. Anyone who has ever stopped smoking will tell you that just being around people who are smoking will trigger cravings. We are learning that the obesity epidemic may be linked directly to this phenomenon - where an environment of copious consumption, mainly through advertising, is fueling overeating. Maybe the pleasure response of climax is tied more closely to association in men than women, as the lag in climax time diminishes associative effects.
In this way the male orgasm is likened to the effects of nicotine, crack, or a cheeseburger, with the associative response triggering cravings in proportion to the immediacy and intensity of the sexual experience. If the dynamic is extended to the female orgasm, taking twice as long to achieve - if at all, it seems logical that the associative response would not be as powerful. We know that women can have associations just as powerful as men when addicted to drugs or food. And we don't generally think of these things as being "objectified", but they in fact are. But what if women didn't experience the same level of pleasure from those activities as men? When a men and women both see a billboard for a cheeseburger, they can imagine - on some level - its salty, fatty juices dripping down their gullet. And they know that in a few minutes that pleasure can be theirs. But what if women's experience of cheeseburger bliss was something less than guaranteed?
I'm not aware of any study having been done on this. But I think it would be very interesting. The hypothesis would be that when stimulated to orgasm with the same degree of consistency and immediacy of men, women should show an increased associative response to pornographic imagery. Of course, there are other cultural mitigating factors, such as gender identity or sexual narrative. But it would be interesting to see if there might be a link to this mysterious phenomenon.
No comments:
Post a Comment