Viewing erotic stimuli

Mar 23, 2007 08:54

Jiang et al (2006) tested the effect of "invisible" erotic pictures on the attention of gay/bisexual and heterosexual males and females. After comparing attraction/repulsion to male or female erotic stumuli, Jiang et al found that while gay men responded like heterosexual women to the suppressed images, gay/bisexual women responded in between this ( Read more... )

arousal, amy lykins, within sex differences, sexual arousal, disgust, sexual orientation, fmri, menses, erotic images, homosexuality, visual stimuli, sex, interocular suppression, heterosexuality, gender differences, elke gizewski, brains, neuroimaging, cycles, porn, vision, erotica, homosexual, sex differences, attention, heterosexual, visual, yi jiang, queer, sexual preference

Leave a comment

Comments 10

astrogeek01 March 23 2007, 14:40:25 UTC
"invisible"?

Also: yes! more women-driven erotica!
Hmm. Hey I read once (here? elsewhere?) that women tended to be more turned on by reading erotica than seeing visual things (like pr0n?). Is there actual research on that or is that anecdotal?

'cuz y'know. the smut i'm writing turns me on... lol

Reply

differenceblog March 23 2007, 14:54:03 UTC
The "interocular suppression" technique they were using was fairly opaque to me -- I'm hoping I can get a better explanation of it next time I talk to a perception/attention guru, Supposedly it allows them to present visual stimuli without the person knowing they're seeing it - like subliminal advertising, I guess.

As for the verbal nature of women's arousal, I covered this slightly in september but really, I haven't found any real evidence to support this.

Reply

njyoder March 23 2007, 17:28:45 UTC
It may be similar to blindsight (which concerns subconscious processing of imagery), but I'm not sure. You can find blindsight tests for sighted people on the internet, they're pretty interesting. By seeing very quickly displayed spots on a screen (and subsequently guessing where it was), your subconscious gets a pretty good idea of where it appeared. Studies have reflected this.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


vinnie_tesla March 23 2007, 14:41:23 UTC
We're in a Catch-22 here. Because our cultural prejudice is that women aren't turned on by visual images, there's enormous resistance for any commercial smut for women. In the absence of such work, no wonder women aren't buying porn--no-one's making it for them!

Reply

differenceblog March 23 2007, 14:55:47 UTC
I definitely think that's a factor. From what I've seen, the only women vocally demanding women-focused porn are queer women, so that still wouldn't meet this need.

Reply

njyoder March 23 2007, 17:31:40 UTC
There is smut for women, it's just very unpopular. Given how much money it could potentially make if it were a true, it would be quickly capitalized on if had shown to be a popular medium.

What's wrong with the current visual pornography anyway? Is there some secret body type they haven't been using?

Reply

differenceblog March 23 2007, 18:23:31 UTC
There is smut for women, it's just very unpopular.

That's not an assertion I can demonstrate with sources. I would be very interested if you could.

Reply


epi_lj March 23 2007, 19:13:51 UTC
If you wanted to create two comparable groups and you couldn't find something similar to Playboy, why not adjust the male-focused group of images to match what was available for women instead of the other way around? ;) (Personally, I don't find the production value of Playboy that appealing. If I'm going to look at erotica, I'd rather look at something a little more "real" than something with a hundred hours of makeup and prep work followed by two hundred hours of digital retouching.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up