The Psychology of Sexual Arousal

Capitalism Magazine ^ | December 18, 2003 | Michael J. Hurd

[presidio9]

Q: Why do men seem to enjoy viewing women naked (e.g., in photos, real life, etc.) much more than women seem to enjoy looking at naked men? It seems men are much more "turned on" romantically/sexually by the visual aspects of the opposite sex, than the other way around. Do you agree? And what accounts for this?

A: I have not done and do not intend to do a scientific study on the subject. However, I can share with you my fifteen years of experience talking to people about all kinds of personal matters, including sex. It is my experience that a general trend exists in which men are much more likely to be aroused by the visual and the physical than are women. However, I also see loads of evidence that men are just as capable of responding to values as well--intelligence, shared interests, sense of humor, sense of life, etc.--as opposed to the exclusively physical.

It appears that the most fulfilling sexual response, for both men and women, is inevitably a merging of the two: values and physical attributes. For whatever reason, many men get more caught up in repressing the one while many women become more preoccupied with repressing the other. It's interesting to note that any attempt to shut out either one--physical or values--whether by a man or a woman, results in some degree of romantic unhappiness. For both men and women, sex without love is as meaningless as love without sex is phony.

Although physiological factors can be involved, since there are obvious differences between men and women physically, I don't assume it's the primary explanation for this observed difference. I don't vote either "nature" or "nurture" as an explanation. Instead, I'm interested in why certain individuals end up choosing to value some attributes over others, and what the consequences of those value choices are.

My experience teaches that both men and women can make errors (most certainly do in romance); and both men and women can make choices that serve their interests and bring sustained happiness. In the area of romance, both men and women have a lot to learn when it comes to integrating their sexuality.

[sit-rep]

Ya'll check this one out....

...Link...

[spodefly]

That pic is great. I wonder what (if anything) those contraptions actually do ...

[stands2reason]

I think if men's naughty bits were more, shall we say, aesthetically pleasing to the eye, I'd want to look at them more.

Shirtless is always good.

[ErnBatavia]

Urrrggggg...must...find antidote!

[presidio9]

Shirtless is always good.

Be careful what you wish for...

[stands2reason]

Women's bodies are just much more beautiful and interesting to look at!

Mmmm, hmmm...

[Sender]

No one can explain why, but men look for a hottie and if she happens to have charm and brains too, that's a plus.

Women look for commitment and security and if he happens to look decent, that's a plus.

'Tis the mystical way of the universe.

[wardaddy]

great link!

[stands2reason]

Sustained happiness for men? I think it's no nagging or guilt trips, letting him buy whatever he wants with no hassling, and lots and lots of hummers.

Two out of three ain't bad....(I'm really tight with money!)

[Chapita]

Now I know why the toggle is up when the machine is turned on!

[Tijeras_Slim]

Shirtless is always good.

[AngryJawa]

Nice boiler...when was the last time this guy tied his own shoes?

[stands2reason]

I meant "attractive men"---see post 46

[Prime Choice]

AHHHH!!!! *runs away from keyboard screaming*

[Quix]

Would have to check recent research . . . but as best as I can recall,

men have more of their brains devoted to visual stimuli in general and women have quite a lot more of their brains devoted to verbal communications. This is true--AT BIRTH.

I think some have postulated--eroneously to my mind--that men became that way as hunters and protectors of the family--needing to be visually alert for game as well as arrows flying by etc.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Yeah, yeah... give Mr. #46 a couple years and he'll come 'round. :)

[stands2reason]

Here. Quick, take two

Monica Bellucci's and call me in the morning...

[Prime Choice]

*eyes pop out on cartoon style springs*

*head morphs into that of a wolf*

Arooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[roadcat]

"Sustained happiness for men? I think it's no nagging or guilt trips, letting him buy whatever he wants with no hassling, and lots and lots of hummers."

Bingo, you hit the mark. When the wifee lays on the nagging or guilt trips, I invoke the "let him buy whatever he wants with no hassling" solution. Over the years I've managed to acquire lots of fancy tools via this method.

[bdeaner]

There's lots of empirical evidence that shows that men tend to be more attuned to physical attractiveness cues, whereas women are more tuned into other things, such as income, personality, and so on. But there is also a lot of overlap.

The gender difference is often explained in terms of evolutionary theory. From an evolutionary perspective, men would be more attuned to attractiveness, because what is attractive is pretty much always associated with attributes of health and/or childbearing capability. Such attributes include waist-to-hip ratio, facial and bodily symmetry, and so on. These tend to be universal indicators of attractiveness.

Women are also attractived to attributes that signal health, such as facial symmetry, as well as attributes that signal the male can protect her physically, such as height, coordination and strength. But women tend more than men to be attracted to attributes that signal that the man is willing to commit to a long-term relationship. If the man sticks around, he can help take care of the children, and the children will be more likely to survive in order to carry on the genes.

There is a lot of research to back up these claims, too.

For a review, see for example:

The Evolutionary Theory of Sexual Attraction