NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/movies/36257

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!max.fiu.edu!serss0!feathers
From: feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Sick and tired of cries of sexism (was Re: 9 1/2 Weeks)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:26:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet Administrator)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida International University, Miami
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anna Filippone) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers) writes:
>>>
>>>>>> to believe that our society dictates men's satisfaction over
>>>>>> women's..i see beer commercials that satisfy men's needs [i
>>>>>> drink beer, too], sportscar commercials [i would like one,
>>>>>> too], and many other instances where men's pleasure is the
>>>>>> aim..not women's.
>>>
>>>I'm sure that one of the reasons that this topic shows up in relation to
>>>movies is the difference between male and female stimulation.  Men are
>>>predominately stimulated by images.  It is biological and it is no
>>>accident that the market for pornography has always been and continues to
>>>be predominately driven by males.  On the other hand, female stimulation
>>>is more situational and tactile.
>>
>>Umm....actually lots of recent research evidence shows that this ain't true.
>>Women ARE aroused by images.  I'd give the authors of the research papers to
>
>I don't think "ARE" constitutes "predominately" [sic].  The difference
>may be one of average levels.  And that is borne out by the marketplace,
>which, you may agree, panders to existing preferences, and cultivates
>them to be more significant if possible.  But if I were to reinterpret
>your statement to mean that you really disagreed with the original poster,
>and that you thought that men and women react identically to visual and
>other stimuli, I'd say that contradicted all that I've read about the
>subject since college, not to say that it definitely isn't so, note.

If I remember correctly, testosterone levels have been correlated with
spatial reasoning ability in several studies.  Apparently testosterone
affects the area of the brain that responds to visual stimulus during
development.

In addition, males typically have a stronger physiological response (as
measured by skin conductivity, heart-rate etc.,) than women in response to
visual stimulus.  On the other hand, the skin sensitivity of the most
sensitive man is nowhere near the skin sensitivity of the least sensitive
woman.

This is not to draw conclusions about which is better, but these are true
differences that are rarely pointed out.  In fact, much of the research that
is done on sex differences has been swept under the rug and the researchers
ostracized.  Apparently, some believe that admitting that all is not nurture
and there are some natural differences, is tantamount to stating that women
are inferior.  The fact is that we are as different as apples and oranges and
no one can say which is objectively better.

When I was a kid I thought that cultures always progress towards knowledge
and that all taboos are ancient leftovers.  I've come to discover that the
kind of information I just posted is rapidly becoming taboo.  Perhaps it
will be accepted in twenty to fifty years, but right now it is one of the
strongest taboos that we have.

I recommend to anyone who is interested in these things a book named:
_The Anatomy of Sex and Power_.  I've forgotten the author's name.