Scan barcode
ameliaelverson's review
3.0
I did find this book interesting… but it discusses straight men and straight women at length. It has a chapter dedicated to gay men, and they are mentioned repeatedly throughout the analysis… lesbian women are literally not mentioned once. WTF? Like you’re not even going to acknowledge that you left out an entire population in your research? Just seems ridiculous. I was waiting the entire book for the chapter on lesbians… nothing. Not even a paragraph.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual content
mahir007's review
5.0
تجربة جيرجن (الغرفة المظلمة)
.
.
كانت الستينيات والسبعينيات من القرن الماضي ذروة تجارب علم النفس الاجتماعي الجريئة والمتهورة قليلاً ، والتي غالبًا ما تشبه حلقات برنامج Jackass على قناة MTV. قسّمت تجربة سجن ستانفورد عام 1971 الأشخاص إلى سجناء وحراس ، يعيشون في سجن مؤقت ، مما أدى إلى إساءات مهينة من قبل الحراس وأعمال شغب من قبل السجناء. تطلبت تجارب طاعة ستانلي ميلجرام في الستينيات من الأشخاص صدمة رجل ما بمستويات متزايدة من الكهرباء حتى بدا أن الرجل قد يموت. في عام 1973 ، أجرى عالم النفس (كينيث جيرجن) من كلية سوارثمور تجربة أخرى في علم النفس الاجتماعي من المحتمل أن تفشل في الحصول على موافقة مجالس الأخلاقيات اليوم. تساءل بحثه : "ماذا يفعل الناس في ظل ظروف تكون فيها هوياتهم مجهولة تماماً؟"
في تجربة جيرجن ، دخل خمسة شبان وخمس شابات غرفة صغيرة واحدة تلو الأخرى. لم يكونوا يعرفون بعضهم البعض قبل التجربة ، وتم عزلهم قبل دخولهم الغرفة. بمجرد دخولهم ، أصبحوا أحرارًا في فعل ما يحلو لهم. في نهاية التجربة ، غادر الأشخاص الغرفة واحدًا تلو الآخر. ولكن ما جعل هذه التجربة مثيرة للاهتمام للغاية كانت الغرفة نفسها. كانت شديدة الظلام.
لم يتمكن الأشخاص من رؤية بعضهم البعض ، ولم يعرفوا بعضهم البعض ، وكانوا يعلمون أنهم لن يعرفوا هويات بعضهم البعض بعد التجربة. بعبارة أخرى ، لقد اختبروا إخفاء الهوية بشكل كامل. إذن ماذا فعل هؤلاء الغرباء المجهولون؟
تحدثوا في البداية ، لكن سرعان ما توقف الحديث ، حيث بدأ اللمس. ما يقرب من 90 في المائة من المشاركين لامسوا شخصًا آخر عن قصد. عانق أكثر من نصف الأشخاص شخصًا ما. انتهى الأمر بثلث الأشخاص إلى التقبيل. قبّل أحد الشباب خمس فتيات مختلفات. يقول أحدهم : "بينما كنت جالسًا ، صعدت بيث وبدأنا نلعب وجهًا لوجه ، نتحسس أجسام بعضنا ، بدأنا في الرقبة نزولاً إلى الأسفل. قررنا أن نشارك الأمر مع الآخرين. لذلك انفصلنا وأخذت لوري مكانها ".
بسبب عدم الكشف عن هوياتهم ، عبر المشاركون بحرية عن رغباتهم. حتى أن أحد الرجال عرض على جيرجن أن يدفع له مقابل السماح له بالعودة إلى الغرفة. أفاد ما يقرب من 80 في المائة من الرجال والنساء عن شعورهم بالإثارة الجنسية بسبب تلك التجربة!!
.
Ogi Ogas
A Billion Wicked Thoughts
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
.
كانت الستينيات والسبعينيات من القرن الماضي ذروة تجارب علم النفس الاجتماعي الجريئة والمتهورة قليلاً ، والتي غالبًا ما تشبه حلقات برنامج Jackass على قناة MTV. قسّمت تجربة سجن ستانفورد عام 1971 الأشخاص إلى سجناء وحراس ، يعيشون في سجن مؤقت ، مما أدى إلى إساءات مهينة من قبل الحراس وأعمال شغب من قبل السجناء. تطلبت تجارب طاعة ستانلي ميلجرام في الستينيات من الأشخاص صدمة رجل ما بمستويات متزايدة من الكهرباء حتى بدا أن الرجل قد يموت. في عام 1973 ، أجرى عالم النفس (كينيث جيرجن) من كلية سوارثمور تجربة أخرى في علم النفس الاجتماعي من المحتمل أن تفشل في الحصول على موافقة مجالس الأخلاقيات اليوم. تساءل بحثه : "ماذا يفعل الناس في ظل ظروف تكون فيها هوياتهم مجهولة تماماً؟"
في تجربة جيرجن ، دخل خمسة شبان وخمس شابات غرفة صغيرة واحدة تلو الأخرى. لم يكونوا يعرفون بعضهم البعض قبل التجربة ، وتم عزلهم قبل دخولهم الغرفة. بمجرد دخولهم ، أصبحوا أحرارًا في فعل ما يحلو لهم. في نهاية التجربة ، غادر الأشخاص الغرفة واحدًا تلو الآخر. ولكن ما جعل هذه التجربة مثيرة للاهتمام للغاية كانت الغرفة نفسها. كانت شديدة الظلام.
لم يتمكن الأشخاص من رؤية بعضهم البعض ، ولم يعرفوا بعضهم البعض ، وكانوا يعلمون أنهم لن يعرفوا هويات بعضهم البعض بعد التجربة. بعبارة أخرى ، لقد اختبروا إخفاء الهوية بشكل كامل. إذن ماذا فعل هؤلاء الغرباء المجهولون؟
تحدثوا في البداية ، لكن سرعان ما توقف الحديث ، حيث بدأ اللمس. ما يقرب من 90 في المائة من المشاركين لامسوا شخصًا آخر عن قصد. عانق أكثر من نصف الأشخاص شخصًا ما. انتهى الأمر بثلث الأشخاص إلى التقبيل. قبّل أحد الشباب خمس فتيات مختلفات. يقول أحدهم : "بينما كنت جالسًا ، صعدت بيث وبدأنا نلعب وجهًا لوجه ، نتحسس أجسام بعضنا ، بدأنا في الرقبة نزولاً إلى الأسفل. قررنا أن نشارك الأمر مع الآخرين. لذلك انفصلنا وأخذت لوري مكانها ".
بسبب عدم الكشف عن هوياتهم ، عبر المشاركون بحرية عن رغباتهم. حتى أن أحد الرجال عرض على جيرجن أن يدفع له مقابل السماح له بالعودة إلى الغرفة. أفاد ما يقرب من 80 في المائة من الرجال والنساء عن شعورهم بالإثارة الجنسية بسبب تلك التجربة!!
.
Ogi Ogas
A Billion Wicked Thoughts
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
omikun's review
5.0
A comprehensive study on sexual desires, drives, and the things we do because of them. It looks at a leaked AOL search dump, other online searches, erotica and porn sites to find hidden patterns and substantiate them with other research and experiments. It dives into the visual, psychological, physiological cues that trigger our desires, the formation of those triggers, and the mental wiring of those cues, which are flexible and changes with environment, and which are hardwired from birth or earlier.
A quick summary: Men are hardwired for intercourse from any one sexual cue (like Elmer Fudd, who pulls the trigger and the hint of a wabbit), while women requires the presence of many cues (Ms Marple's Detective Agency). Cues for men tend to be mostly physical and visual: body parts indicative of gynoid fats (breasts, hips, thighs) that signals fertility. "Female ornamentation garners attention and resources from males." This means men are hardwired to objectify women (the presence of any one of these body parts is enough to turn a man on). Males of other species exhibit similar behavior. Women responds to physical, social, cultural, financial cues, as well as. personality, commitment, etc. They are also sensitive to food, shelter, and security. The number and combination of cues required changes with each individual. The only body part commonly mentioned by erotica for women is the butt.
"The female brain splits conscious psychological arousal apart from unconscious physical arousal, while the male brain units them. But the male brain splits apart two neural systems that are united in the female brain: sex and romance."
Playgirl attracts a large gay audience. Gay porn attracts a large heterosexual female audience.
Gay men are attracted to the same body parts as hetero men, just different gender. They tend to be split across top/bottom. Excess testosterone during pregnancy may be the reason why some men are born gay. Excess testosterone are also converted to estrogen. Bottom is generally more feminine, but also have larger penis. Gay men (bottom?) consumes hetero porn and is attracted to masculine (hetero) men.
Formation of cues: men tend to form them early in teen years. Could be from a single instance (exposure to breasts in a sexual manner) or from indirect means (getting aroused during a testicular scan, where doctors office becomes an implicit cue). Implicit cues are likely to stick if imprint is coupled with orgasm. Cues are unlikely to change in men. Thus, visual cues vary with men to men. They respond to cuckold cue from sperm competition. They respond to amateurs from authenticity cue and novelty cue. They also respond to partner pleasure cue, "one of the most potent psychological cue." "The male cue for female sexual pleasure is entirely analogous to the female cue for a man's emotional commitment." "Transgression can intensify arousal." Men hunt for the perfect single cue, the elusive Bugs Bunny. Though any cue will do.
"In a very real sense, there is something tragic about male sexuality. It is never satisfied... male desire is frequently a solitary affair."
"When the rage center of a monkey's brain is artificially stimulated, the monkey will rise swiftly up the dominance hierarchy, by virtue of frequently fighting other monkeys." - Is this analogous to fox news/rush/trump and their rise in the conservative social hierarchy?
While women's cues may change depending on the situation/environment (security, comfort). Writing/reading erotica is more of a social enterprise vs men.
Erotical illusions - like optical illusions. Examples are trans-women for men and Twilight/yaori for women. Transwomen combine female visual cue with sperm-competition cue. Twilight invokes hyper masculinity and yaori deflects threatening cues from triggering alarm bells in ms mapel's detective agency. "...by identifying those cues, we can liberate ourselves and appreciate the true nature of human desire."
A quick summary: Men are hardwired for intercourse from any one sexual cue (like Elmer Fudd, who pulls the trigger and the hint of a wabbit), while women requires the presence of many cues (Ms Marple's Detective Agency). Cues for men tend to be mostly physical and visual: body parts indicative of gynoid fats (breasts, hips, thighs) that signals fertility. "Female ornamentation garners attention and resources from males." This means men are hardwired to objectify women (the presence of any one of these body parts is enough to turn a man on). Males of other species exhibit similar behavior. Women responds to physical, social, cultural, financial cues, as well as. personality, commitment, etc. They are also sensitive to food, shelter, and security. The number and combination of cues required changes with each individual. The only body part commonly mentioned by erotica for women is the butt.
"The female brain splits conscious psychological arousal apart from unconscious physical arousal, while the male brain units them. But the male brain splits apart two neural systems that are united in the female brain: sex and romance."
Playgirl attracts a large gay audience. Gay porn attracts a large heterosexual female audience.
Gay men are attracted to the same body parts as hetero men, just different gender. They tend to be split across top/bottom. Excess testosterone during pregnancy may be the reason why some men are born gay. Excess testosterone are also converted to estrogen. Bottom is generally more feminine, but also have larger penis. Gay men (bottom?) consumes hetero porn and is attracted to masculine (hetero) men.
Formation of cues: men tend to form them early in teen years. Could be from a single instance (exposure to breasts in a sexual manner) or from indirect means (getting aroused during a testicular scan, where doctors office becomes an implicit cue). Implicit cues are likely to stick if imprint is coupled with orgasm. Cues are unlikely to change in men. Thus, visual cues vary with men to men. They respond to cuckold cue from sperm competition. They respond to amateurs from authenticity cue and novelty cue. They also respond to partner pleasure cue, "one of the most potent psychological cue." "The male cue for female sexual pleasure is entirely analogous to the female cue for a man's emotional commitment." "Transgression can intensify arousal." Men hunt for the perfect single cue, the elusive Bugs Bunny. Though any cue will do.
"In a very real sense, there is something tragic about male sexuality. It is never satisfied... male desire is frequently a solitary affair."
"When the rage center of a monkey's brain is artificially stimulated, the monkey will rise swiftly up the dominance hierarchy, by virtue of frequently fighting other monkeys." - Is this analogous to fox news/rush/trump and their rise in the conservative social hierarchy?
While women's cues may change depending on the situation/environment (security, comfort). Writing/reading erotica is more of a social enterprise vs men.
Erotical illusions - like optical illusions. Examples are trans-women for men and Twilight/yaori for women. Transwomen combine female visual cue with sperm-competition cue. Twilight invokes hyper masculinity and yaori deflects threatening cues from triggering alarm bells in ms mapel's detective agency. "...by identifying those cues, we can liberate ourselves and appreciate the true nature of human desire."
tartanshelf's review against another edition
1.0
After receiving this book as a gift, I was initially looking forward to an interesting read on “the teeming diversity of human desire” exhibited on the internet, an exploration of human sexuality “that overturns conventional thinking”. Not to mention that the Plume edition I was given is one of those satisfyingly pliable books that just seems to jump open to be read. What a disappointment.
Altogether, this book is... troubling. The authors often draw correlations without any real evidence, using loose language to mask their lack of knowledge. They draw such a distinct, and heavily patronising, divide between the “male” and “female” brain that they reduce their work to caricature, hardly a revolution in the representation of sexuality. The role of society and how it cultivates acceptable outlets for certain groups of people is ignored as a cause for gender-divided interests, allowing the authors to extrapolate behaviours to come to their own conclusions.
While it is an exploration of online sexuality, filled with quotes and allusions to works of fiction, the authors themselves are neuroscientists. You might expect to read about neuroscience here then, but, like myself, you would be sadly disappointed. In fact, they hardly seem to acknowledge the fact that their study is about online fiction, where authorship, readership, and intention are questionable, and fairly unanswerable, even by the closest observer. There is no real attention brought to the difference between what people look at and what they do.
A messy, immature, disappointing read.
Altogether, this book is... troubling. The authors often draw correlations without any real evidence, using loose language to mask their lack of knowledge. They draw such a distinct, and heavily patronising, divide between the “male” and “female” brain that they reduce their work to caricature, hardly a revolution in the representation of sexuality. The role of society and how it cultivates acceptable outlets for certain groups of people is ignored as a cause for gender-divided interests, allowing the authors to extrapolate behaviours to come to their own conclusions.
While it is an exploration of online sexuality, filled with quotes and allusions to works of fiction, the authors themselves are neuroscientists. You might expect to read about neuroscience here then, but, like myself, you would be sadly disappointed. In fact, they hardly seem to acknowledge the fact that their study is about online fiction, where authorship, readership, and intention are questionable, and fairly unanswerable, even by the closest observer. There is no real attention brought to the difference between what people look at and what they do.
A messy, immature, disappointing read.
jrobles76's review
5.0
I miss studying Evolutionary Psychology. The thing I miss about college was access to journal articles, now that I'm just a regular person I'm forced to wait for the odd book released about Human Mating that actually uses science for it's theories. So I was overjoyed when I saw this book.
This book is part validation of previous research and part new theories. They use internet searches, top views, word analysis, and a few other techniques to get at what is actually driving human sexual urges. You see, one of the problems with normal research is that it relies on self-reports or hooking people up to uncomfortable machines and getting biological readings from them. While both of these can give us an idea of what people find sexy or sexually attractive, it's still somewhat limited. But what if you could self report with true anonymity? Behold the internet. Where every day someone is typing in a search for something that turns them on. Want to know what women find appealing, check out romance novels and do word frequency analysis. It's truly amazing and represents an ability to analyze data that didn't even exist 20 years ago.
Like I mentioned earlier a portion of this is validating previous research, but the most intriguing part is the new theories and the ways in which the authors present the data. I love the Elmer Fudd and Miss Marple analogies. The idea that for men Physical and Psychological arousal are a direct one to one correlation. But for women, it's much more complicated. Men are like Elmer Fudd, Wabbit Hunter. We are primed to shoot anything that even remotely looks like a rabbit. Put rabbit ears on a doll, we shoot it. Dress up Daffy as Bugs, we fall for it. Our sexual cues are easily primed by pictures, thoughts, a smile.
The Erotical Illusions chapter was the most illuminating, though also requiring a bit more research, but the theory seems sound. All in All this was a fantastic book written with great humor and actually peppered throughout with quotes from stand-up comics. Really great for those who have been following the psychology of human mating and evolutionary psychology in general, but also great for the average person looking for a little insight into the human mind.
This book is part validation of previous research and part new theories. They use internet searches, top views, word analysis, and a few other techniques to get at what is actually driving human sexual urges. You see, one of the problems with normal research is that it relies on self-reports or hooking people up to uncomfortable machines and getting biological readings from them. While both of these can give us an idea of what people find sexy or sexually attractive, it's still somewhat limited. But what if you could self report with true anonymity? Behold the internet. Where every day someone is typing in a search for something that turns them on. Want to know what women find appealing, check out romance novels and do word frequency analysis. It's truly amazing and represents an ability to analyze data that didn't even exist 20 years ago.
Like I mentioned earlier a portion of this is validating previous research, but the most intriguing part is the new theories and the ways in which the authors present the data. I love the Elmer Fudd and Miss Marple analogies. The idea that for men Physical and Psychological arousal are a direct one to one correlation. But for women, it's much more complicated. Men are like Elmer Fudd, Wabbit Hunter. We are primed to shoot anything that even remotely looks like a rabbit. Put rabbit ears on a doll, we shoot it. Dress up Daffy as Bugs, we fall for it. Our sexual cues are easily primed by pictures, thoughts, a smile.
The Erotical Illusions chapter was the most illuminating, though also requiring a bit more research, but the theory seems sound. All in All this was a fantastic book written with great humor and actually peppered throughout with quotes from stand-up comics. Really great for those who have been following the psychology of human mating and evolutionary psychology in general, but also great for the average person looking for a little insight into the human mind.
skyesthelimitnj's review
4.0
A totally fascinating read about what people want, how they want it, and how they find it.
beccarettenberger's review
4.0
Such an interesting collection of data! Recommend for anyone with a background in sociology or just a mind intrigued by why humans behave the way they do.
cameronbweston's review
4.0
This book is insanely interesting. This book is a pretty cursory guide and good starting point on how sexuality develops in the brain during the fetal stage and goes all the way through to adulthood. There were so many interesting facts and so much data in this that I’ll probably have to reread it to absorb it all.
However, this book mainly just presents the hard data and metrics and discusses the “WHAT” and spend a lot of time hypothesizing on the “WHY” without backing up the “WHY” with a ton of studies or references.
However, this book mainly just presents the hard data and metrics and discusses the “WHAT” and spend a lot of time hypothesizing on the “WHY” without backing up the “WHY” with a ton of studies or references.