Let’s talk about a particularly provocative set of experiments that Meredith Chivers has
done.
This is fascinating Canadian research I’ve spent so much time with.
So several years ago when I first got interested in her work and I kind of stumbled into her
lab.
I was working on a different unrelated project at the time.
When I stumbled into her lab I found her showing an array of pornography – so men with women,
women with women, men alone, women alone, and even bonobos having sex to self-identified
straight women, gay women, straight men, gay men.
And measuring both their physical response that is vaginal or response in terms of erection
for men and then their subjective response via keypad.
How turned on do I say I am.
And finding something fascinating which was that the male response was pretty predictable.
The straight men actually did mostly just get turned on to men with women or women with
women.
Gay men equally predictable.
The women were very unpredictable and kind of anarchic in at least their physical response.
Again there was this big dichotomy.
The women were saying I’m turned on by what I “should be turned on” by straight women,
by, you know, men with women or to a certain degree I suppose men with men and gay women
by images of women, et cetera.
But their bodies were saying something completely different and their bodies were saying they
were turned on by all of it.
And perhaps most strikingly you might think those bonobos having sex would at least reach
something animalistic in men.
No the men showed zero response subjectively or physically.
But the women did show this physical response to the image of bonobos having sex.
So a lot of interesting things about this, probably too many to name but one for sure
is that the idea of women’s sexuality as somehow more controlled needs to be put aside
if we’re going to do any serious searching about Eros in women.
And too this idea that women are somehow less visual, less immediate in their sexuality
than men.
Again you need to put that aside if we’re going to do any serious looking at truths
about women’s sexuality.
Now here’s a bit of later Chivers research that both goes along with but also pulls us
in a slightly different direction than that original set of studies.
So remember part of the original set of studies shows women being quite anarchic in what they’re
drawn to.
Chivers decides okay, let me take a set of straight women, self-declared straight women
and show them just four types of photographs and see what happens.
Four types of pornographic photographs.
So we’ve got a flaccid – and these are kind of disembodied genital shots just so
we have nothing to distract us, not a pretty face, not a handsome face, et cetera.
So we’ve got a dangling flaccid penis.
We’ve got an erect penis.
We’ve got a kind of coy soft porn female crotch shot, legs together.
And then we’ve got a legs spread more hard core shot.
So the straight women do respond to all of it physically.
But that erect penis sends the plethysmograph, a measure of physical response, soaring.
And it’s just an indication again of rawness, immediacy and just a kind of this is about
sex.
Let’s be careful before we complicate it with all the factors that we eventually complicate
female sexuality with.
There is a core to this and we shouldn’t be so quick to look away from it.