蛮有争议,很多媒体注意力。
A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World's Largest Experiment Reveals about Human Desire [Hardcover]
Ogi Ogas / Sai Gaddam (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Billion-Wicked-Thoughts-Largest-Experiment/dp/0525952098
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/05/the-neuroscience-behind-sexual-desire-bring-your-questions-for-authors-of-a-billion-wicked-thoughts/
“In what is claimed to be the largest experiment ever, two neuroscience PhDs from Boston University, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, analyzed a billion web searches, a million web sites, a million erotic videos, millions of personal ads, thousands of digital romance novels, and combined it all with cutting-edge neuroscience. The result is the most complete study of the human brain and sexuality ever, which they’ve compiled into a new book called A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World’s Largest Experiment Reveals About Human Desire. Among other things, their research reveals profound differences between the sexual brains of men and women, even though they are both hardwired to respond to the same sexual cues. For instance: male brains form sexual interests during adolescence and rarely change, while female brains change frequently throughout their lives. For men, physical and psychological arousal are united, while they’re completely separate for women“
- posted on 05/06/2011
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/feminism-anti-viagra-equal-rights-bed-kills-mood/story?id=13376084
Feminism as the Anti-Viagra: Do Equal Rights in Bed Kill the Mood?
By COURTNEY HUTCHISON, ABC NEWS Medical Unit
April 18, 2011
Is feminism a sexual buzz kill -- a veritable "anti-Viagra"? This is the contentious claim made by neuroscientist Ogi Ogas, whose research into the brain chemistry of desire is raising eyebrows among some sex experts and certainly some feminists.
Some would argue that the feminist movement has enabled women to be more proactive about expressing and fulfilling their sexual needs, but according to Ogas, problems arise -- at least on a neurochemical level, when strict gender equality is taken from the boardroom to the bedroom.
"Most women prefer to play a submissive role in the bedroom. We've got these primal sources of sexual arousal hard-wired in the brain. Though both males and females are born with the brain circuitry for dominance and submission, nature apparently only links one of these circuits to the arousal system. It appears that in females the circuits are hooked up to be aroused by submission -- usually," he says.
Building on research of the brain and the way we experience desire chemically and psychologically, Ogi Ogas argues that divorcing power dynamics of dominance and submission from sexual play may be hindering sexual satisfaction.
By this logic, attempting to divorce a submission/dominance power dynamic from sexual intercourse would inhibit desire. "If you're a woman, or a man, and you're preferred role is submissive, if you feel compelled to approach sex with the same gender equality as the working world, it's going to be hard to be aroused," Ogas says. In his upcoming book on the subject "A Billion Wicked Thoughts," Ogas uses the different ways men and women consume porn, erotica, and other sexually-related materials online to study desire.
The assertion that most women want to be sexually dominated alone is enough to raise hackles with many women, but billing feminism as a desire-dampener has spurred serious backlash from feminist scholars.
Deducing desire from porn habits is problematic, says feminist author Jessica Valenti. In reference to the proliferation of violent male-dominated porn in recent years, she says: "I think this porn exists because we live in a misogynist society, not because men are hardwired to want to dominate and take advantage of women. That's a dangerous argument because it gives an excuse for men for watching violent porn -- 'if that's in their brain, how can we fault them?'"
"Explaining it away with brain chemistry seems like a really incomplete model. It doesn't take into account socialization, or what we're taught to desire by the culture around us," she adds.
Feminist Standpoint
As is the norm for sexual research, talking about what gets people off is a thorny topic, especially when it crosses into the realm of domination and fantasies of sexual violence.
For those familiar with the sexual battles of the women's rights movement, the idea of pinning women's current sexual dissatisfaction on feminism, as Ogas does in a recent blog post concerning his research, seems ludicrous, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s."
As recently as the end of the 19th century the normal woman (as in not a prostitute) was thought to not have any sexual desires, she says. "Men believed that only prostitutes enjoy foreplay and that they shouldn't use it on a woman you respected, such as your wife. Fast forward to the early 1960s when most state laws held that a husband could not rape his wife because marriage constituted a 'permanent level of consensus,"' Coontz says.
"I recognize that sexual desire is complex and some people may feel ashamed for wanting to be submissive, but when you look at what sex was like before feminism, you'd have to be crazy to think that feminism has interfered in our sex lives," she says.
Recent studies, such as one a 2007 Rutgers University paper, found that couples who identify as feminist, both the men and the women, report having more fulfilling sex lives and more stable relationships, Valenti adds.
At first glance, Ogas' findings are poised to push a lot of buttons, but does the (mostly) gendered preference for submission and dominance have to be inconsistent with feminism?
Dr. Louann Brizendine, neuropsychiatrist and author of "The Female Brain," would say no.
Brizendine would be the first to recognize the difference, neurologically and hormonally between a male brain and a female brain: for instance, the fact that male arousal is 90 percent visual whereas female arousal "is all over the map" in terms of what triggers pleasure centers in the brain. "But male or female brains are more alike than they are different. Men and women overlap in the most areas...the brain is very flexible," she says.
And the way these brain differences play out sexually does not necessarily conflict with feminism, she says. "I think it's easy to confuse women out there in leadership roles, and their right to these leadership roles, and a woman's preference in the bedroom. It's like looking at apples and oranges," she says.
"I have an orgasm, you have an orgasm -- that is gender equity in the bedroom that we didn't have in the 1950s. The feminist movement has given women a voice to say what they like sexually," she says.
And this "brand of feminism," Ogas says he agrees with: "A feminism that approaches the bedroom on equal footing and then proceeds mutually through asymmetrical power roles would be a sexually healthy form of feminism. One that needs to maintain equal power roles in the bedroom would limit sexual satisfaction."
- posted on 05/06/2011
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/04/23/042311-opinions-column-sex-valenti-1-2/
A ‘natural’ woman
The claim that empowerment kills female pleasure is misleading and silly
By Jessica Valenti Saturday, April 23, 2011
Feminism has been blamed for a lot of things over the years: burned bras, ruined families, even global warming. (Apparently if women had stayed in the kitchen, they wouldn’t be emitting so much carbon monoxide on the drive to work.)
According to Ogi Ogas, co-author of “A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World’s Largest Experiment Reveals About Human Desire,” the latest social ill born of feminism is women’s sexual woes. It seems equality has made us all frigid.
In a Psychology Today article, “Why Feminism is the Anti-Viagra,” Ogas argues that the reason women have more difficulties getting turned on than men is that “gender equality inhibits arousal.” For someone so concerned about female desire, it’s telling that Ogas’ headline refers to a drug made for men’s sex drive. You see, women are “naturally” more submissive, and attempts to level the playing field outside of the bedroom have resulted in some sort of mass sexual confusion under which women are unable to achieve orgasm because they haven’t properly surrendered.
For proof, Ogas asks us to consider the Norwegian female rat, which “induces a male to chase her” and puts herself in a sexually submissive position in front of him. Something tells me that feminism is far less of a turnoff for women than being compared to a horny Scandinavian rodent. (And the accompanying photographs of copulating rats helped neither Ogas’ argument nor my breakfast.)
It also weakens Ogas’ case that the “world’s largest experiment” that he and co-author Sai Gaddam conducted in order to make this sweeping declaration about female sexuality is an analysis of Internet traffic. Who could ask for a clearer picture of the complex human psyche than Lolcats and Facebook habits?
Despite the unsavory “evidence,” Ogas’ work has gotten titillated media attention from ABC News and the New York Times, all for repeating a sentiment long argued by conservatives hell-bent on rolling back women’s rights.
The idea that feminism kills the supposed “nature” of sex is hardly new. The conservative Independent Women’s Forum, for example, holds an annual “Take Back the Date” campaign in which they encourage college women to reclaim Valentine’s Day from “radical feminists on campus who use a day of love and romance to promote vulgar and promiscuous behavior.” The sluttiness in question? Performances of the award-winning play “The Vagina Monologues.” Antifeminist author Miriam Grossman has penned two books about how feminism and sex education seek to “strip our little girls of their natural inclination toward modesty and replace it with an attitude of sexual dominance.”
In her excellent book “Woman: An Intimate Geography,” science writer Natalie Angier writes, “Women are said to have lower sex drives than men, yet they are universally punished if they display evidence to the contrary — if they disobey their ‘natural’ inclinations towards a stifled libido.”
And that’s the danger in claiming that there is a “natural” explanation for what women (or men!) are supposed to desire. Sexuality is far more nuanced than that. The tired sexual stereotypes of men as dominant and polygamous and females as submissive and monogamous don’t leave room for everything — and there is quite a lot — in between.
And while I’m sure plenty of women do like to be submissive in bed, it’s silly to think that feminism would keep them from exploring that option. It was feminism that opened the door for women to seek out sex for pleasure, rather than for procreation, that encouraged women to embrace their bodies and fought for laws that respected women’s bodily autonomy.
Now, this is not to say there aren’t real inhibitors of female sexual desire at work in our society — of course there are. We’re faced every day with hundreds of advertisements telling us our bodies are disgusting and need to be shaped, lifted and sucked of fat. We live in a country whose government is constantly trying to limit our reproductive options. And a generation of young men is learning about sex from a mainstream porn culture that displays violent masculinity as the norm.
If Ogas and writers like him are truly worried about female sexuality, perhaps they should spend more time advocating on the issues that really hold women’s libidos back. And a bit of advice to get them started: Leave the rats behind.
- Re: 关于男女欲望的新书posted on 05/06/2011
小麦 wrote:
For instance: male brains form sexual interests during adolescence and rarely change, while female brains change frequently throughout their lives.
终于盼来一本红宝书的理论指导,男人更专注,女人更花心? - Re: 关于男女欲望的新书posted on 05/06/2011
老瓦 wrote:
小麦 wrote:终于盼来一本红宝书的理论指导,男人更专注,女人更花心?
For instance: male brains form sexual interests during adolescence and rarely change, while female brains change frequently throughout their lives.
“male brains form sexual interests during adolescence and rarely change”
更乏味?笑。 - RE: 关于男女欲望的新书posted on 05/06/2011
回复 #1 小麦我一直认为人跟人之间的差异超过单纯性别的差异。我们早就在一个男不再是男,女不再是女的世界,因此这个研究的视角以及成果可能就没有那么有特别的意义了。
一个人虽然有全部的男性特征,但他的心理特征全部是女性的,这样的例子到底...他该算是哪一边的呢? 男的?女的?
还有那么多性向模糊的同性恋、变性者,他们到底该算是禽类还是兽类?
性向渐渐模糊,实在分不清男女了。
- Re: RE: 关于男女欲望的新书posted on 05/06/2011
maya wrote:
一个人虽然有全部的男性特征,但他的心理特征全部是女性的,这样的例子到底...他该算是哪一边的呢? 男的?女的
我听过的最有趣的实例,是生理上是男人,心理上是lesbian, 所以他爱女人,但是是以女人爱女人的心理来爱。当然,生理表现仍然是,这是一个男人和女人的结合。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation