June 13, 2008--"Bi the Way"
Back when I was in college, which was a while ago, there were only a few ways to make some extra legitimate bucks.
Actually, there were three ways—for about $25 you could sell a pint of blood at any number of commercial storefronts in Times Square; for twice that, if they accepted you, you could be a sperm donor; and then there were opportunities to participate for pay in various medical experiments.
I did all of the above. The first two are rather self-explanatory. The latter, in my case, involved having various parts of my body hooked up to electrodes, being shown a battery of soft- and hardcore pictures (mainly Playboy centerfolds and what at the time were called French Playing Cards), and being closely interviewed about what I was “feeling” as the images were flashed on the screen. Not much in regard to feelings, I can testify, in the closet-like lab they had put me in. Now, if they had picked another setting and the photos hadn’t been so grainy, at a rambunctious 19, my responses would have likely jumped off the charts. At least, that’s what I prefer to believe.
The exhaustive Kinsey Reports had already been published and I wondered what else they might be seeking to learn from me. Certainly not anything much from direct experience. I was still very much an innocent. Though maybe they selected me to be a part of the sample since they hadn’t been able to find too many boys my age who had never . . . how shall I put it?
All I knew was that I needed the money.
Looking back on this, I know that studies of this kind—about sexual responsiveness—revealed an unflattering truth: all you needed to do to get males aroused was show them a few erotic pictures. Even grainy ones. Females, on the other hand, responded in much more nuanced ways—they didn’t get stimulated by a few cheap pictures; they found more worldly and sophisticated things to be arousing. Things such as wit and intelligence. It was widely reported that for many women a man’s sexiest organ was his brain. The same brain, I came to wonder, that got turned on by a pair or naked boobs?
What a convenient (and sexist) truth—these so-called findings disputed carnal equality and justified to many men that there was no need to cut back on beer guzzling and get in shape because to attract women all you needed to do was appear to be intelligent or amusing.
But as we know, a lot of this has changed, we view sexuality more equitably, though essentialists continue to claim that there are in fact significant differences between males and females, including in the sexual realm.
Case in point, the new documentary film, Bi the Way. One of the researchers presented in the film says that, not unlike what was claimed in my early days, “For heterosexual women looking at a naked man walking on the beach is about as exciting as looking at landscapes.” (Quoted in the NY Times. Article linked below.)
To prove the point, women, also hooked up to electrodes, watching, say, athletic-looking naked men tossing stones into the ocean had similar reactions to when they looked at “control footage” of the snowcapped Himalayas.
On the other hand, and this is where it gets interesting, when the same hetero women watched naked women tossing stones by comparison they got much more turned on then men when they were shown those same Himalayas.
Even more provocative in regard to male-female sexual responsiveness, in a 2004 experiment, women were much more inclined than men to be aroused by film of the coupling of bonobo monkeys!
I don’t know what to make of this. In fact, neither apparently do the filmmakers and experimenters. Since this was all reported in the New York Times’ “Style” section, is the paper of record suggesting all of this is just about women and men adopting different lifestyles? Or, if they are probing toward some more profound truth, why wasn’t this reported in the Times’ “Science” section?
Apparently one of the film’s female directors is also confused. Reporting “embarrassment” with her own lack of this kind of experience, she said, “The sad thing is I desperately need to get with a girl.”
Also sad was how that also wasn’t one of the options they presented to me way back then.
Actually, there were three ways—for about $25 you could sell a pint of blood at any number of commercial storefronts in Times Square; for twice that, if they accepted you, you could be a sperm donor; and then there were opportunities to participate for pay in various medical experiments.
I did all of the above. The first two are rather self-explanatory. The latter, in my case, involved having various parts of my body hooked up to electrodes, being shown a battery of soft- and hardcore pictures (mainly Playboy centerfolds and what at the time were called French Playing Cards), and being closely interviewed about what I was “feeling” as the images were flashed on the screen. Not much in regard to feelings, I can testify, in the closet-like lab they had put me in. Now, if they had picked another setting and the photos hadn’t been so grainy, at a rambunctious 19, my responses would have likely jumped off the charts. At least, that’s what I prefer to believe.
The exhaustive Kinsey Reports had already been published and I wondered what else they might be seeking to learn from me. Certainly not anything much from direct experience. I was still very much an innocent. Though maybe they selected me to be a part of the sample since they hadn’t been able to find too many boys my age who had never . . . how shall I put it?
All I knew was that I needed the money.
Looking back on this, I know that studies of this kind—about sexual responsiveness—revealed an unflattering truth: all you needed to do to get males aroused was show them a few erotic pictures. Even grainy ones. Females, on the other hand, responded in much more nuanced ways—they didn’t get stimulated by a few cheap pictures; they found more worldly and sophisticated things to be arousing. Things such as wit and intelligence. It was widely reported that for many women a man’s sexiest organ was his brain. The same brain, I came to wonder, that got turned on by a pair or naked boobs?
What a convenient (and sexist) truth—these so-called findings disputed carnal equality and justified to many men that there was no need to cut back on beer guzzling and get in shape because to attract women all you needed to do was appear to be intelligent or amusing.
But as we know, a lot of this has changed, we view sexuality more equitably, though essentialists continue to claim that there are in fact significant differences between males and females, including in the sexual realm.
Case in point, the new documentary film, Bi the Way. One of the researchers presented in the film says that, not unlike what was claimed in my early days, “For heterosexual women looking at a naked man walking on the beach is about as exciting as looking at landscapes.” (Quoted in the NY Times. Article linked below.)
To prove the point, women, also hooked up to electrodes, watching, say, athletic-looking naked men tossing stones into the ocean had similar reactions to when they looked at “control footage” of the snowcapped Himalayas.
On the other hand, and this is where it gets interesting, when the same hetero women watched naked women tossing stones by comparison they got much more turned on then men when they were shown those same Himalayas.
Even more provocative in regard to male-female sexual responsiveness, in a 2004 experiment, women were much more inclined than men to be aroused by film of the coupling of bonobo monkeys!
I don’t know what to make of this. In fact, neither apparently do the filmmakers and experimenters. Since this was all reported in the New York Times’ “Style” section, is the paper of record suggesting all of this is just about women and men adopting different lifestyles? Or, if they are probing toward some more profound truth, why wasn’t this reported in the Times’ “Science” section?
Apparently one of the film’s female directors is also confused. Reporting “embarrassment” with her own lack of this kind of experience, she said, “The sad thing is I desperately need to get with a girl.”
Also sad was how that also wasn’t one of the options they presented to me way back then.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
10:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home