12-20-2012, 11:19 AM
I once read in some scientific paper that the difference between the female libido and the male one (generally speaking, there are always exceptions) is that the female one is turned on by body movement while the male reacts just as well to images of the female bits. Unfortunately I don't have a link to the source anymore.
I find that to be true in my case. I enjoy images of both naked and semi-naked hunks just fine, but it doesn't make me want to have sex, while a particularly well-made sex scene (as well as a lot of fight scenes, but that's probably just me) in a movie can make me drop my pants in a NY minute.
I find that to be a widely accepted paradigm I simply cannot agree with, not only because it is the root of a terrible amount of sexism (against both sexes), but because it stems from almost non-disputed sociological theories formulated by people living in chauvinistic times and societies. The studies of bonobos and chimpanzees mentioned in the OP allow for a completely different take on that, one which explains some behaviors the "women want a keeper" approach just doesn't.
Speaking strictly from personal experience, my libido doesn't give a fuck (hehe) if someone looks like he might be able or willing to support me and a hypothetical child. What I react to in terms of attraction is a physique that indicates the owner's genes to be fit for me to bear a healthy child, nothing more (err, that's on a subconscious, evolutionary level, not an actual thought process. There isn't much I want less than a child). The shape of the penis is, unless it's deformed, not an indicator for that at all, so my libido simply doesn't care.
Where was I? Ah, movement vs image. My personal working theory on that is that in order to have the highest chance for a successful insemination, the pelvis movement plays an extremely important role (the deeper, the closer to the egg etc). The difference between male and female reproductive organs is that -again, only from a biological, non-fun perspective) the males do the work while the females pretty much only have to make it happen (or, to put it even more bluntly, just hold still). Therefore, moving male body = stimulating to women, not-moving female body = stimulating to men.
Exceptions, variations, other factors notwithstanding.
As for men doing household chores - I couldn't care less.
I find that to be true in my case. I enjoy images of both naked and semi-naked hunks just fine, but it doesn't make me want to have sex, while a particularly well-made sex scene (as well as a lot of fight scenes, but that's probably just me) in a movie can make me drop my pants in a NY minute.
Quote:While we all agree that modern women aren’t having sex just to get a baby out of it, still, from an evolutionary standpoint, females are looking for more than just a nice package in his pants, we’re looking for a package deal.
I find that to be a widely accepted paradigm I simply cannot agree with, not only because it is the root of a terrible amount of sexism (against both sexes), but because it stems from almost non-disputed sociological theories formulated by people living in chauvinistic times and societies. The studies of bonobos and chimpanzees mentioned in the OP allow for a completely different take on that, one which explains some behaviors the "women want a keeper" approach just doesn't.
Speaking strictly from personal experience, my libido doesn't give a fuck (hehe) if someone looks like he might be able or willing to support me and a hypothetical child. What I react to in terms of attraction is a physique that indicates the owner's genes to be fit for me to bear a healthy child, nothing more (err, that's on a subconscious, evolutionary level, not an actual thought process. There isn't much I want less than a child). The shape of the penis is, unless it's deformed, not an indicator for that at all, so my libido simply doesn't care.
Where was I? Ah, movement vs image. My personal working theory on that is that in order to have the highest chance for a successful insemination, the pelvis movement plays an extremely important role (the deeper, the closer to the egg etc). The difference between male and female reproductive organs is that -again, only from a biological, non-fun perspective) the males do the work while the females pretty much only have to make it happen (or, to put it even more bluntly, just hold still). Therefore, moving male body = stimulating to women, not-moving female body = stimulating to men.
Exceptions, variations, other factors notwithstanding.
As for men doing household chores - I couldn't care less.