What do women find arousing?

Khanada · 2005-04-16 00:05:54

Hi, everyone! I apologize if I'm posting this in the wrong forum, but it seems that the traffic in this one is greater and more up-to-date, and I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

I'm interested in hearing from women themselves what they find arousing, since it has always interested me, especially how it relates to sexual orientation.

I don't like to label myself, but I suppose that you would consider me to be heterosexual, since I've only had sexual relationships with men and have always planned on having a male life-partner (which I have now and I am quite happy with him ). Although I have always wanted to have sexual experiences with women (and have had some major crushes that have not come to fruition, particularly since one was a married female professor of mine), I haven't yet done this. My boyfriend does not object to this desire, which I appreciate .

However, when it comes to enjoying erotic material (of which I have found this site to be the epitome and have been enjoying its gifts since last spring), I only enjoy erotica involving women--I don't enjoy erotica involving men at all. I am able to find women objectively sexually stimulating, meaning that I can be aroused by a woman on the screen who is a stranger to me, but this is not the case for me with men. I have to personally know and be involved with a man to be sexually aroused by him (I don't watch the male agonees here, though I appreciate them as much as I do the women who contribute, it's a brave thing to do regardless!). I can appreciate the beauty of the nude male body but do not find it at all sexually appealing (unless he's my sexual partner, as I stated). This is not the case for me with women .

So that's how it is for me, and I'm very curious to hear anyone's responses to this subject, their own personal experiences--male or female. What do you find arousing? Are there any heterosexual men out there who find male gay erotica sexy? How does this relate to your gender/sexuality? No, I'm not conducting some sort of study, I'm just really interested in this stuff .

Thanks for reading my ramblings!

alaclark · 2005-04-16 08:28:59

Lovely that you're here! So good to have a woman being frank about being interested in this. Hope your example will encourage others of our (apparently) tiny minority of female subscribers to speak too.
[Yup, we may be in the wrong forum-area, but I guess our kind administrators will move us over somehow, if so.]

Since the topic's somewhat vast, any starting-place will serve. As it happens, I can report one first-hand female opinion, from earlier this week, when I showed une amie speciale a few clips from Zalman King's film of 1988, Two Moon Junction. She said that since she didn't find the actors appealing, nor their characters sympathetic, her erotic responses (to some quite steamy soft scenes) were very slight. But she was nice enough to remind me that, by contrast, she found quite arousing the erotic scenes in, she instanced, The English Patient, Body Heat, and The Last Seduction -- since these all involve appealing actors, and strong-minded female characters she was happy (for cinematic purposes anyway) to sympathise with. If anything, the scenes in all those latter three films are shorter, and possibly less explicit, than those in Two Moon Junction -- but, oh boy! (pardon me, is it OK, PC, to say oh girl!?) I can quite agree with her that their effect is more intense.

In response to one of your questions: having made recent viewing-experiments in these areas, I can confirm that in my particular heterosexual-male case, I find male gay erotica a total turn-off. More interestingly, while I can find lesbian erotica (visual erotica, anyway) fascinating and sometimes arousing, it has to be open to (at least a possible, potential) inclusion of men too. Any clearly male-hating or male-excluding lesbian depictions are likely to leave me cold.

That's just another way, I suppose, of stating my sympathies. Women can be so gorgeous, and their potential for sensual pleasure so awesome (far exceeding that of the male, IMHO) that it's entirely understandable that other women should sometimes find their 'sisters' tempting and attractive. So, it's not symmetrical: female bisexuality is, by and large, fine by me; male bisexuality, not so.

ruby · 2005-04-21 01:37:35

This post certainly holds a resonance for me, as I often wonder why as a heterosexual woman, I show little or no sexual response to pornography featuring men exclusively, but an extremely heightened sexual response to pornography made for a male audience.

True that biologically the female body is designed to look appealing, its aesthetic function is to attract a virile male mate. Round soft arse, breasts, curve of the vagina lips etc. The male naked form, on the other hand is made up of straight lines, and hard edges. Although I can appreciate a well defined male figure, as demonstrating signs of health, strength and vitality. Think Michelangelos David.
This difference relates to the two different types of sexuality-one which is stereotypically male and the other female. Male sexuality is visual, detached and outcomes based (reaching orgasm for men is usually a given), vs female sexuality which is emotional and processed based (foreplay is important, female orgasm isnt always the main motivation for sexual experience).
(See Faust, Beatrice Women, sex & pornography. Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1981).
This is a generalised difference, so all the romantic emotional men who love processed based love making dont slaughter me yet
Therefore it makes sense that many women find it difficult to responds sexually to images of naked men, as their sexuality isnt visual. Unlike mens sexuality which is very responsive to visual stimuli. An issue that arises from this difference is that as women we expect that we should respond to visual stimuli as men do.

I think that there are a few reasons I am aroused by naked women, the first is connected to what is known as Male Gaze theory (Laura Mulvey, wrote about it from a film spectatorship perspective).

A good article is http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html).

According to Mulvey, visual communication in society is based upon what men see and how they see it (e.g film, advertising, television etc). If you think about anything from bra ads to the nightly news, this theory states that these modes of communication are created with a male audience in mind. Therefore as women, we begin to see the world and understand the world through the gaze of a man.

Hence, my reaction to pornography. I feel as though visually I am stimulated by what I know will stimulate men, kinda indoctrinated to be aroused in a secondary sense. So when I view a naked woman, I imagine myself being the woman (and being watched by men). So imagining men being turned on by women arouses me. Interesting theory, I am still trying to get my head around it, and also to understand my own desires/ attractions etc

Sexuality is such a wickedly complex thing!

monkey13 · 2005-04-21 02:01:33

>Therefore it makes sense that many women find it difficult to responds sexually to images of naked men, as their sexuality isnt visual.

Ruby, as generalization, your opinion seems correct.

>their sexuality isnt visual.

Then, are those women who are here exceptions?

Lancefer · 2005-04-22 18:55:49

Sexuality:

Males: Visual
Females: Mental

When partners can recognize this and prepare for such endevors to compiment arousal, be prepared for extacy. Hasn't failed me yet.

ruby · 2005-04-26 08:12:43

yep- gotta say that i agree with that one.

but the visual element seems easy to produce, but the mental for females?

any tips??

alaclark · 2005-04-26 09:30:01

ruby wrote:

yep- gotta say that i agree with that one.
but the visual element seems easy to produce, but the mental for females?
any tips??

Whisper in her ear!
(or, she into his, if he's getting *really* lucky)

alaclark · 2005-04-26 09:54:54

Khanada, since you mentioned that crush on a professor (in your first message above) I naturally thought of you yesterday when our BBC Radio 4 broadcast a fascinating -- and boundary-pushing -- programme about romantic-and-more teacher-pupil relationships. At least two were female/female; at least one (m/f) resulted in marriage.

Couldn't entirely concentrate on programme since I was having my bath-and-shampoo at the time, but I can listen again (though maybe only up to seven days from yesterday). And so can you, if this, um, whisper in your ear has got you interested. The link below should take you to the index-page, then just find & click on 'Married to Teacher'.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/atoz/index.shtml#m>

alaclark · 2005-04-26 10:48:06

Khanada and Ruby in particular (but inevitably, all lurkers too!)

I havent spotted any mentions on this site yet of the work of Roy Stuart (American photographer-artist, video- and film-maker, working in Paris these many years).
Since his work is, in my estimation (and, happily, like this site and its sister ISM) in another and better world from any of the appalling, mindless, pasteurized, sanitized, creepy commercial pornsites that have occasionally been mentioned here, I feel I have to risk a cautious recommendation.

But cautious is the right word, and RISK -- and WARNING!. Message to any who dont want to risk seeing something real, sometimes very disturbing, and sometimes wildly funny and/or totally joyous, too, something that employs mind as well as groin, asks you to think, reflect, and question your sexual categories and prejudices, something that reminds us how deeply dangerous and obsessive as well as joyful the power of things sexual can be: stop reading now and go away!

Stuart loves real women of many kinds, especially those with all their body-hair growing luxuriantly, and his powers of persuasion must be considerable, since many, perhaps the majority, of his women have a fresh, first-and-probably-only-time, quality. Little in the way of drab professionalism, there. Perhaps thats because, sensible man, he puts female pleasure at the centre always. Occasionally his well-endowed men get to be equals of his women, but never never superior (and theyre seen getting their come-uppance if they try!); more often theyre entranced to be submissive. Quite often his women are solo or in pairs, pleasuring themselves, or being pleasured, with fingers or vibrators, sometimes (this is a warning, remember) urinating along the way. I dont happen to share Stuarts special interest in this, though Im happy with his love of graceful dancing, but its all part of the mind-stretching he offers. He has lots of inventive and unexpected scenes, lasting anything between 20 seconds and 20 minutes; they use and parody and subvert cliché-porn techniques, and one can learn a lot about how cheesecake photo-sessions work, too.

A cautious way in is to check Stuarts two websites (below), for details of his photobooks and of his DVDs: there are reviews of most of them in English -- and in French (worth reading if you can pick your way through the language: someone there describes his work, I think, as une espece de monomanie erotique). Another way is through Stuarts lavish Taschen series of four photobooks some people here must already know them, I speculate? which are fair warning of the kinds of situation hes fascinated by. The fourth one, published last year (see Amazon or wherever), comes complete with a sample DVD, in a pocket at the end -- which is far the cheapest way of sampling his video work, and also the films hes beginning to turn to these days though his strongest scenes are reserved for his main series of DVDs. These videos are expensive, but since theyre all well over two hours long are perfectly fair value per minute in my estimation.

(However, the length and variety brings a little problem of its own: each video is like a big box of erotic chocolates, and we know what happens if you insist on consuming the whole box in one sitting!)

OK, the two websites are as follows -- but note well: commercial pirates are using other versions of the Roy Stuart name: dont be fooled!

http://roy-stuart.com
http://roystuart.net

For yet another way in, there are useful reviews on the following site of RSs first two Glimpse videos (there are 8 so far, plus a film, Giulia its findable in IMDB, I think -- and another film is pending)

http://www.haro-online.com/movies/glimpse.html [ditto:/glimpse2.html]

By the way, that haro-online site appears to be another labour of love: no adverts, no visible means of support. The movie-reviews, done since 1999, seem to be its raison detre: the rest of the site enjoys various wacky jokes.

Khanada · 2005-04-26 14:03:41

alaclark, thank you for those suggestions. I'll have to check all of that out one of these days--sounds quite intriguing.

Ell · 2005-04-27 06:49:21

I'd have to second the Roy Stuart recommendation, some very hot and engaging sexy stuff, well worth a look. I have all his books and the DVD that came with "The Fourth Body", in the forward he says...

"When you're dealing with an energy called human sexuality, it's one energy, but with different levels. At its lowest it's a physical irritation, that sparks a quest for something that results in a release. Yet at its highest it can transform a person, take you into another dimension. Meditation was discovered through the practice of sex. Meditation is the one way to get you out of the mind, where there are no more thoughts, no inner dialogue, where you can approach transformation or transcendence. That's the highest point, as opposed to being stuck at the lowest, unrefined raw level as in pornography where they're just depicting a ridiculous pantomime of people desperate for relief. We're trying to create a model of something better." Roy Stuart

Jo · 2005-04-27 18:57:34

Ell wrote:

"...as opposed to being stuck at the lowest, unrefined raw level as in pornography where they're just depicting a ridiculous pantomime of people desperate for relief. We're trying to create a model of something better."

May this be a credo for this BA site?

FBsmith · 2005-05-09 03:22:13

What a great topic. I would like to add, along the lines oF Lancefer's comment, something I read in a study. Most of the "Porn" industy has failed to understand that women enjoy viewing sex, especally with their partner, if it is presented right. They want to see a story line, compassion, tenderness, the women taking charge- they don't want to see the close-ups, the money shots,etc. As an artistic photographer, I have make it my business to understand this difference, so I can produce images that appeal to both sexes. In addition, it has helped me very much understand how to photograph women, in an erotic way. I hope this has added a little insight into this topic.
FBsmith

FBsmith · 2005-05-09 03:24:23

And thank you Khanada, for bringing up this topic.
FBsmith

richard · 2005-05-09 05:18:59

Jo wrote:

Ell wrote:
"...as opposed to being stuck at the lowest, unrefined raw level as in pornography where they're just depicting a ridiculous pantomime of people desperate for relief. We're trying to create a model of something better."
May this be a credo for this BA site?

If only we wrote it!

Khanada · 2005-05-10 00:14:04

FBsmith wrote:

And thank you Khanada, for bringing up this topic.
FBsmith

You're quite welcome, it's been interesting to see it evolve.

One random thing I'd like to add with regard to what I think is arousing that I find here at BA but nowhere else is the element of surprise. One of the things that, to me, is highly unappealing in your typical pornographic film is the fake, practiced sound of the woman's excitement. There's nothing more delicious in these videos than that moment in which you can see surprise touch a woman's face, that realization that she's so close, that something wonderful and "agonizing" is coming upon her, and it is, indeed, at least to me, a pleasant surprise each time. Not only is it truly real (which is what I find most arousing of all), but it's one more level to the experience that is very telling. I think this also ties in (though you all can feel free to disagree with me on this!) with the idea that, during intercourse in particular, it is pretty much expected for a man to reach orgasm, but this is not the case, generally, for women (I direct you to OV0030 from November in which the lovely lady discusses "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm"). So that moment of surprise, of realization that it is indeed going to happen--since many women don't always reach orgasm even through self-love--is truly a gift.

Any response to this is greatly welcome.

PC elmo · 2005-05-31 19:59:25

Khanada wrote:

One random thing I'd like to add with regard to what I think is arousing that I find here at BA but nowhere else is the element of surprise.

Definitely with you on that one.

#1 2005-04-16 00:05:54

What do women find arousing?

#2 2005-04-16 08:28:59

Re: What do women find arousing?

#3 2005-04-21 01:37:35

Re: What do women find arousing?

#4 2005-04-21 02:01:33

Re: What do women find arousing?

#5 2005-04-22 18:55:49

Re: What do women find arousing?

#6 2005-04-26 08:12:43

Re: What do women find arousing?

#7 2005-04-26 09:30:01

Re: What do women find arousing?

#8 2005-04-26 09:54:54

Re: What do women find arousing?

#9 2005-04-26 10:48:06

Re: What do women find arousing?

#10 2005-04-26 14:03:41

Re: What do women find arousing?

#11 2005-04-27 06:49:21

Re: What do women find arousing?

#12 2005-04-27 18:57:34

Re: What do women find arousing?

#13 2005-05-09 03:22:13

Re: What do women find arousing?

#14 2005-05-09 03:24:23

Re: What do women find arousing?

#15 2005-05-09 05:18:59

Re: What do women find arousing?

#16 2005-05-10 00:14:04

Re: What do women find arousing?

#17 2005-05-31 19:59:25

Re: What do women find arousing?

Board footer