Showing posts with label sexo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexo. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

What Do Women Want? Understanding The Fluidity of Female Desire


What Do Women Want? Understanding The Fluidity of Female Desire
Originally uploaded by lorenzodom

*Photo originally posted June 16, 2007, Un Deux Trois


What Do Women Want?
Understanding The Fluidity of Female Desire
New York City, January 28, 2009:

A recently published article in the New York Times (What Do Women Want?, Daniel Bergner, January 25, 2009) presents a thorough summary of many different recent clinical and behavioral psycho-sexual studies and confirms what many of us all already know—men and women desire differently.

As both rigid scientific studies and informal observations have shown over the years, men tend to draw a narrow-minded physiological path toward arousal, whereas women are open to being stimulated by almost anything, especially if it involves piquing their emotions and psyche.

More surprisingly though, the article seems to conclude that women not only desire differently, but who they desire is significantly different too. For recent studies show women who proclaim to tender only heterosexual inclinations (i.e. desire toward men only), may actually be in denial, as the results of measured vaginal transudation counters what the test subjects otherwise report verbally.

Research also found that men with high sex drives report a greater polarized pattern of attraction than most males (that is, heterosexual men are much more attracted to women than any inclination toward men, and likewise, homosexual men, are much more attracted to men than any inclination toward woman ).

However, this is NOT the case for women. Because in women the opposite is generally true: the higher the sex drive, the greater the attraction to both sexes.

That said, I also recently read a piece in Psychology Today (Finding the Switch: Homosexuality may persist because the associated genes convey surprising advantages on homosexuals' family members, May/June 2008) that argues that homosexuality may be a result of evolution.

As a result, it is argued that women have gay sons because it is to their advantage, because they will "protect" them, so to speak (i.e. they will never leave their mothers and will always love them...). The article also notes that women with a greater sex drive, often had a higher dose of testosterone (thus, more likely to have the same inclinations as a man so to speak) and thus were more likely to have gay sons.

Last week’s New York Times article also reports that there is a female equivalent of Viagra on the way called Flibanserin. “The medication was originally meant to treat depression — it singles out the brain’s receptors for the neurotransmitter Serotonin. As with other such drugs, one worry was that it would dull the libido. Yet in early trials, while it showed little promise for relieving depression, it left female — but not male — subjects feeling increased lust.”

That said, my personal experience has been, that within a certain demographic of women, aged roughly between 24-42, (see A Little Love and Affection (Is All We Need) for more on this controversial theory), lust is occasionally, if not often, driven by the desire to procreate…

In other words, I M U S T H A V E B A B Y!

As much as men (mostly) make fun of this nagging desire, in a few frank conversations I’ve had with women of this particular sector, it appears that this desire is actually quite real and physiologically (esp. hormonally) driven.

Thus, albeit the makers of Flibanserin are not being forthcoming as to what neurological receptors they are tapping or blocking, I would infer that it could very well be whatever ever causes baby fever.

*

Getting back to the basis of basic desire, the article also cites studies that conclude “men may rely more on such physiological signals to define their emotional states, while women depend more on situational cues.”

In other words, women are more sensitive to the people and world around them, they don’t have to be hit in the head to get a clue. Phrased differently, later on in the article the author concludes “Female desire may be dictated — even more than popular perception would have it — by intimacy, by emotional connection.”

However, that said, this is only another reason as to why women might naturally be inclined to have an attraction to other women—because women understand what makes women tick—feel good, feel bad, better, whatever. Women know how to make other women feel good much better than men generally do (“Uh, what? I’m like touching her, ain’t that enough?”).

As a related aside, this article discusses the idea that female lubrication is also evolutionary. Citing studies on rape, Bergner writes, “Evolution’s legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings.” In other words, men should note that just because a woman is wet, does not mean she is whet—for apparently orgasms are not the only signs of arousal that can be faked too.

*

All that said, in addition to the empathy factor, I’ve long heard both men and women declare that women are simply more naturally beautiful to begin with. Hence, the millennia of art and odes and images that have focused on feminine beauty, as opposed to that of the harder, courser, often more rugged, male physique.

Moreover, as this New York Times piece proposes toward the end—there is something to be said about “being desired” too that makes women desirable to both men and women.

For women have long been perceived as, and made an effort to, make themselves desirable. Men, for the most part, at least straight men for the most part, are not as naturally inclined to be as preoccupied by their looks and their quotient of fatal attraction. Gay men on the other hand, seemingly readily understand and empathize women better and thus their impulse to make themselves desirable.

To support this insight, in a study of visual attention in heterosexual men and women where subjects looked at pictures of heterosexual foreplay, it was found that the men stared significantly more at the females than at the males. However, “the women gazed equally at the two genders, their eyes drawn to the faces of the men and to the bodies of the women — to the facial expressions, perhaps, of men in states of wanting, and to the sexual allure embodied in the female figures.”

To simplify and bring it back home, women simply want to be desired (but then again, who doesn't?)

Thus, as much as many women have, during a certain period in their life, had the impulse to find a good man she can trust, one who will provide a good home and protect her and her children—underlying this need is also the desire to be ravaged against a wall in some dark alley by some tall, dark and handsome stranger.

*

For the last decade or so, the AIDS epidemic has tainted sex. Subsequently, prevention, in the form or instilling fear and encouraging abstinence, made the natural feeling of desire a monster. Prudence concluded that the Summer of Love of 1969 and the following decade of indulgence, led us to where we are now. Thus, for the last decade or so, desire was denied entrance into the realm of life because it became the probable cause of looming epidemiological disaster.

However, as more and more studies on the alarming surge of STDs are confirming, because people are tired of denying their internal impulses, they are perilously traversing the divide between reason and desire, and have begun behaving in ways that may be worse than when this whole crisis began.

At the same time, people are looking toward alternative means of satisfying their sexual impulses safely.

Thus, I’ve found that some brave women are just starting to explore and accept their natural inclinations toward other women. Since it is perceived to be relatively safer than having sex with men and both sexes usually agree that women are on the whole more beautiful than men, it seems that more women, both young and old, are exploring their so-called Sapphic inclinations and allowing themselves to venture, to go where many women have not gone before, and dip their toes in the forbidden waters of Lesbos.

*

Twenty years ago, a Greek friend of mine, Phyllis, told me “I think we are all born with a natural desire and love for both sexes. It is only life that determines whether we lean toward one way or another.”

Even since that certain epiphany, I’ve pondered and wondered and inquired about the intrinsic nature and motivations of desire and love in us all.

Having long made an effort to be aware of my own deep-seeded sexual and amorous penchants and desires (i.e. I Love All Women), I have long been interested in understanding those whom I love.


Sexologist Lisa Diamond argues that “quite possibly for women on the whole, desire is malleable, that it cannot be captured by asking women to categorize their attractions at any single point, that to do so is to apply a male paradigm of more fixed sexual orientation…For women on average, she stresses that desire often emerges so compellingly from emotional closeness that innate orientations can be overridden. This may not always affect women’s behavior — the overriding may not frequently impel heterosexual women into lesbian relationships — but it can redirect erotic attraction.”

Thus, I’d be interested to hear from you and what you discern to be the truth underlying desire.

What do you think?

Do women want more women?

Do women desire differently than men? If so, how?

My enquiring mind wants to know…


“The Baroness has joked that she has helped my sex life. It’s possible, not because I’m binding or getting bound, but because that world can teach you a lot about being open about desire.”
Daniel Bergner (from Surveying the Outer Reaches of Lust: An interview with Daniel Bergner, author of The Other Side of Desire: Four Journeys Into the Far Realms of Lust and Longing, by Charles McGrath, New York Times Magazine, January 23, 2009)


*

Check Out My Bookstore:
www.blurb.com/user/store/lorenzodom

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Gettin' Some in NYC! (on Valentine's Day, 2008)


Gettin' Some in NYC! (on Valentine's Day, 2008)
Originally uploaded by lorenzodom

The New York City Department of Health launched a very cool new TV, radio and print ad campaign for condom distribution today with the official slogan: Get Some.

Today, the Department is dispersing street teams to meet commuters at busy crossroads around the city – including Union Square in Manhattan, the Atlantic Avenue station in Brooklyn, and 149th Street and Grand Concourse in the Bronx – to distribute the official new NYC Condom for Valentine’s Day, which was redesigned by Yves Behar, founder of the San Francisco-based design agency, fuseproject.

However, “despite its new packaging, the NYC Condom itself has not changed. The distinctive new wrapper contains the same lubricated Lifestyles latex condom that was in last year’s subway-themed package.”

For more information about the campaign and where you can “get some” read the Department’s press release on this important event.

Also check out the cool very-very short, seconds-long, art videos created for the campaign on the Department’s website.

This has been a public service message brought to you by Lorenzo!

WATCH A Special Valentine’s Day Video I Created: Six Stories of Love

Monday, February 4, 2008

Moving From Super (Bowl) Sunday on to Super Tuesday


My Super Bowl Sunday with some SEXY Victoria's Secret Model
Originally uploaded by lorenzodom

Monday, February 4, 2008, New York City:

My Super (Bowl) Sunday was spent taking photos on the streets of New York City.

While most other New Yorkers were indoors cheering on the home team to victory, I was reveling in the brisk clear night, along with a handful of foreign tourists who were likely interested in a different kind of foot-ball.

Since the boys were at the end of a weeklong bout of illness, we spent the weekend indoors watching The Music Man, The Maltese Falcon and Thumtantic. So, when I dropped them off with their mama in Jersey on Sunday night, I decided to get some exercise by walking home to 108th Street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal at 42nd Street.

I could have joined the vast majority of my fellow New Yorkers, and arrived a little late to one of the Super Bowl parties I had been invited to, but, unfortunately, I‘ve had a lifelong bout with not-being-a-sports-fan per se. I love playing them, but I’m just not inclined toward simply watching from the sidelines.

Of course, there are always exceptions. For, now that both the boys are involved in sports—Nicky in the kind of fútbol that rest of the world plays, and Enzo in wrestling—as a proud father, I watch and cheer enthusiastically.

However, when it comes to the big boys playing, I’ll usually pass. I think the most memorable professional games for me were the few San Francisco Giants games I attended with my father in sixth grade when I received a number of complimentary tickets for superior academic performance. But then again, the thrill wasn’t the game, it wasn’t so much the excitement of possibly catching a foul ball, but rather, it was simply the fact that I got to spend time with my father and the great sense of pride that came with earning the tickets, because I was apt to have my nose in books.

Well, today I’m supposed to swell with pride over a different set of Giants.

Alas, I only saw a few minutes of the game as I passed the Jumbotron in Times Square last night. But even then, I wasn’t really watching, for I found the crowd watching the game from the street far more intriguing than what was happening high up above on the screen.

Not being a sports fan has its problems though.

First, there is a certain kind of loneliness you’re going to feel when you opt out of the traditional social gatherings set about the TV. This can be especially true when you’re walking the streets of Manhattan at night alone and there are dozens of people screaming like mad from the windows.

My primary consolation is an attitude that can be summed up in something that Professor Harold Hill (Robert Preston) said to Marion in The Music Man, when he was trying to woo her into meeting him at the bridge by the brook:

“Oh, my dear librarian, you pile up enough tomorrows and you’ll find you’ve collected nothing but a lot of empty yesterdays. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to make today worth remembering.”

Thus, perhaps somewhat arrogantly, I tend to abscond the chance to socialize when it comes to baseball and football and the like. Instead, I often choose to pursue the opportunity to make my time here memorable by indulging in what has made my life most meaningful over the last couple of years—street photography.

Alas, albeit minor, the troubles of being such a social misfit, often continue into the next day when everyone is talking about the game and you have no clue as to what, when or who. This morning I’ve had to lie a lot because the strange looks and shocked remarks you get when you answer truthfully begin to gnaw at you.

After one too many crooked necks rhetorically implore, “You didn’t watch the game?,” you begin to realize that it is best to just lie a little, because no one wants to hear that you didn’t do what everyone else was doing, especially if they themselves were doing it.

Admittedly though, I’m fairly used to it by now.

A few years ago I was sitting at a bar with corporate counsel waiting to negotiate a contract, when a commercial for football came on, on the set looming above. He asked what I thought about a so-and-so team. With a grin, disguised as a sincere and coy smile, I confessed, "Sorry, I'm not much of a sports fan…love to play, but rather not just sit and watch." He responded, "You must miss out on a lot of conversations. It's such a great ice-breaker." I thought to myself, "Well, I probably don't miss much." Nonetheless, we somehow still managed to have an interesting conversation at the bar that afternoon, while we waited.

And allthemore, I feel that by not being much of a spectator I’m apt to not to miss out on something a little more important to me—having a chance to play in my own game, to revel in my own little triumphs, choosing to live, rather than die a slow death in front of the television.

I fully realize that this may sound a bit smug—believe it or not, it is not really meant to be—I don’t fancy myself better than anyone else at all, but I will admit that by professing my doings and don’ts that I do hope to inspire others to likewise forgo the party every once in a while; to take the risk of jumping into the game, rather than safely watching it from afar; in other words, to work a little harder at fulfilling their dreams by executing their passions—so that, ultimately, they might look back happily, rather than lament the lot of empty yesterdays.

*

Speaking of what one can do to make life more meaningful, there is a lot of hoopla over Obama these days.

I darted students passing out fliers in the streets this morning and I have friends sending me links to Black Eyed Peas videos of songs made from rallying speeches by Barack: Yes, we can (change).

As I was explaining to my 8-year old Enzo last night at the dinner table, who happens to be writing a report on JFK, the current presidential candidates have been vying to stoke the passions of people by comparing themselves to the mythical politicians of the past—for the Republicans, that would be Reagan, and for the Democrats, it has been John F. Kennedy.

To complement our discussion, I read the Sunday Times Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich ( Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama). In sum, he writes that Obama appeals to the masses because he is poetic and people are yearning for a change, much as people yearned for change more than 40 years ago when JFK was elected, despite the overwhelming odds against him.

However, Rich also argues that while Barack Obama is proselytizing from the podium, Hilary Rodham Clinton has a lot more practical experience fighting in the trenches of the political battlefield, and that, ultimately, this is the kind of experience that might lead to meaningful change.

Either way, don’t forget to vote on Super Tuesday—because indeed it will lead to change, one way or another.

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and realistic. Too often we hold fast to to the clichés of our forebears.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy