> I don't mean to share inappropriately intimate info onlist, but
> I have a point: crude generalizations--"visual fantasies
> are important to men", "all men get off on lezzie sex"--aren't
> going to help us understand the astonishing diversity of
> human sexual activities and desires.
Not all generalizations are crude. For example, men are generally taller than women, but of course some women are taller than some men. There are always individual exceptions. However, non-conformist as I try to be in politics, artistic tastes, etc., I am frequently distressed by how boringly similar my sexual appetites seem to be to those of the standard male (straight variety). It seems to come with the territory, I figure.
But as I say, generalizations always have exceptions. I dare say that there are some men who don't get turned on by visual fantasies, but they are probably very rare. And no doubt many women are porn flick fans, but I would guess than not many of them really enjoy either "lezzie sex" or "gay sex" flicks -- which I think was the observation that started this discussion. (And BTW, "lezzie sex" doesn't turn me on either -- I think it's a minority taste, though the minority is apparently sizable, considering how well such productions sell.)
Not all fantasies appeal to every man or woman, naturally, but there are broad similarities (as evidenced by the cheesecake which was an almost universal decoration on the walls of places where men tended to congregate in the unenlightened past, and can still be glimpsed here and there even in this modern age).
Rather than making my observation about visual fantasies, I might have come closer to the truth by quoting good old Dr. Comfort from _The Joy of Sex_: "male turn-ons are situational and concrete, while many female turn-ons are situational and atmospheric" (from the article "Men (by him for her)"). And: "It isn't true that nudity, erotica, etc., don't excite women -- probably the difference is that they aren't overriding things" (from the article "Women (by her for him)").
And in _More Joy of Sex_, he qualified these (perhaps crude) generalizations by writing, "There are plainly biological differences between men and women -- if there weren't there wouldn't be this book -- but beyond the really obvious ones, the most striking thing is that among the real and the supposed behaviors and aptitudes which our culture rates as male or female, it's virtually impossible to tell which are built in and which aren't. ... Almost all the subtler differences in actual response between men and women in our society are of this 'probably learned' kind. ... We learn, therefore, to be masculine or feminine according to the rules laid down by society. ... Women may be expected to scream and faint or too land with airborne troops, men to dominate women and treat them as slaves or to defer to them totally. It depends when you live and where (though at any time there would have been people of either sex who welcomed their role or detested it.)" (from the article "His and hers").
However, I have a suspicion (not backed up by any solid empirical evidence, unfortunately) that, though behavior between the sexes is changing, slowly and fitfully, in a more liberated direction, our core, ultimate turn-on fantasies are not of the "probably learned kind," and therefore are not changing as much.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile