So everyone likes to be desired and to fall in love, but the ladies like to be safe (makes sense given the risk) and powerless and for the guy to be primal and smug (but they really don't like it when the guy's powerless), whereas the guys like to be safe and primal but less than half are actually into power play.
You know, Aella, I think they're not after you because you're Not an Official Researcher. I think they're after you because you say all the stuff they've been lying to us about for years. And you've got a sample of hundreds of thousands.
The emperor has no clothes. I hope you keep roasting sacred cows. I like steak.
Seems weird that 70+% of women said they're turned on by feelings of safety for themselves, yet 55% said they were aroused by feelings of vulnerability. Those seem like completely opposite feelings. There's no such thing as safe and vulnerable/powerless at the same time.
I really hate that the more I read your data, the more annoying I find women.
That doesn't really make sense to me. To be vulnerable is to be in danger, that's what it means. The presence of safety removes the vulnerability, and vice versa.
Unless you're talking about roleplaying/make believe danger? Like a roller-coaster that simulates physical danger for the adrenaline rush of a survival threat, but without any actual danger. Is that what you mean?
I think you're having a definitional issue then. Vulnerable isn't a synonym for danger - it's to be in a position that exposes you to danger. The difference is subtle but meaningful. If someone is not wearing clothing, they're vulnerable to criticisms of their naked appearance. If someone is handcuffed to a bed, they're vulnerable to... all sorts of mental and physical harm.
To take the metaphor out of the bedroom - let's say I want to work with an investor. I trust them, so I decide I am not in danger. I tell them the inner workings of my company, this puts me in a vulnerable position, as they could use this information to cause me harm. In this context (just like in the bedroom) vulnerability indicates trust.
To allow yourself to be vulnerable means you are putting yourself in a position that someone else COULD hurt you. It's possible to be both safe and vulnerable.
There’s a few angles I immediately jump to. First, sex (on the female side) is inherently vulnerable. You’re allowing someone typically significantly stronger than you inside your body. You’re trusting them to act in your preferred demeanor (reverent, romantic, dominant, aggressive, combo, whatever). You’re trusting them to not say you are ugly and gross during or after. That vulnerability/risk can cause adrenaline which is enjoyable. The women that enjoy this might prefer hookups or polyamory. Some women don’t like this type of vulnerability so they only have sex in committed relationships.
The second type of vulnerability is still about the physical power of your partner. Women are typically smaller and weaker, hooking up with a big, strong guy that could do whatever he wants requires you to physically let go of some control. It’s comparable to the intimacy of a secret, it’s vulnerable to share and when someone respects your secret it can bring you closer to them because you feel safe.
To be fair I am a long-term relationship gal so I don’t have a ton of hookup experience but I hope this helps. Let me know if there’s anything that doesn’t make sense. I want you to better understand instead of thinking women are annoying.
Yes this is about things you find arousing with people they find attractive.
So no the Serial Killer with a gun who is threatening to kill you is not as sexy as the Khal Drogo Guy to most people.
Because Powerlessness is not a discrete state. There are always different kinds of "overwhelming power".
And it is perfectly possible to feel powerless in one situation, but knowing that the person who is "overpowering" you is not gonna kill you, so its kinda "safe".
One can feel safe to be vulnerable. Not in danger but not in control. The world is full of the behavior. I find it better as play to explore emotional states than reality. In an extreme case consider a baby with loving parents; that probably feels nice. Of course people like many things but I'm guessing that's the main sense of it. So evolutionarily and with cultural echos women probably felt safer when they experienced male power because that could protect them, children, etc. but not to the point it was a danger to them. Not as relevant now but people have the same gene pool and it's not yet irrelevant either. I certainly feel safer knowing how dangerous my wife can be but at the safe time it's less comfortable than unthreatening women.
But feeling "safe to be vulnerable" is not the same as feeling vulnerability. It's another way of saying "not actually vulnerable" or "risk of vulnerability reduced to a point of play acting".
The definition of vulnerability is LITERALLY the opposite of safety: "the quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed."
I suppose I was thinking of people being actually turned on by a feeling, when in reality all this is measuring are feelings that may very well be an unpleasant and unavoidable side-effect of the actual source of arousal, which therefore become associated.
So I'm guessing the woman is imagining a scenario where some strong powerful gorgeous barbarian dangerous man wants to ravish her...which would make anyone's ovaries naturally pump out the juices so that one can secure strong powerful gorgeous genes and offspring. But would also make one feel vulnerable -- which is just the unavoidable crappy cost to pay for the asset of the strong barbarian warrior genes. But I guess that all gets wrapped up together in unreasoning associated emotions of horny/scared. Okay fine.
Then I guess the safety/warmth response is the same thing...she's imagining the relief and triumph of getting the barbarian to fall in love.
In reality, both of these scenarios would be a complete turn off if the source of the scary danger was a disgusting dangerous old man weird serial killer rather than Khal Drogo.
Probably the same with men saying someone else being vulnerable is erotic...only because he's imagining a beautiful person who may reject him if not for being powerless. Doubt they're turned on by a vulnerable 80 year old in a diaper whose fallen and can't get up.
All the most popular emotions here are completely revolting in the context of an unattractive person.
Makes me think most people don't really know themselves well anyway. It's weird people ranked anger so low, when my observation is that it's a (super infuriating) reliable aphrodisiac across lots of personality types and both sexes.
Trust games where the vulnerability is real and the safety comes from the person not the physics. Mammals often play trust games so they know who they can count on in real danger. Hierarchy games as well but trust games can be especially nice with equality. It's pretty erotic when someone with a ton of options chooses to be vulnerable and you can barely understand why but then you do.
Sexuality with perpetually vulnerable, dependent and enfeebled people is not high on the list. On the other hand some of the sexiest women I have known were well past reproductive age. When the spark is gone that's different but human sex is often about much more than reproduction. You are probably right in the general case though.
Again assuming competence, consent, etc. most people can be beautiful if they want. All women look the *same with enough orgasms. Though it does take some sort of attractiveness for that to happen.
Anger can be an aphrodisiac. Especially in inexperienced people passions often cluster and it's often hard to measure which emotion with instruments. I fondly recall and argument with my first wife. We were arguing about I don't recall what. I got so mad I yelled "Fuck You" at her (only time ever I think). She looked me in the eye and said "Anytime, anywhere." I'm guessing the sex that followed was pretty good but that's maybe not the best way to get there.
Also the big toe is next to the genitals in the brain.
And it's interesting to consider the top five emotions at once.
And I think your perspectives sound pretty valid.
*Edit: By the same I mean equally attractive but unique.
I think most people have experience with scenarios like you describe with the argument with your first wife. That's why I don't believe the results ranking anger so low. Sure, it's not most people's ideal, but it's definitely a thing. Being in a fight at all implies a worthy adversary, so there's that.
Anger as an aphrodisiac is also a huge part of why so many people have trouble leaving abusive/volatile relationships. No one really wants to talk about it because it's an ugly reality and doesn't garner any sympathy, but a major part of why people have trouble giving them up is because they're usually having off the charts incredible sex. Fight/explosive sex/make up/fight/explosive sex/make up is a difficult addictive cycle to break. It's likely impossible to match that level of intensity in a relationship with someone you get along with calmly and easily, unfortunately. When one's misery with a relationship is only matched or exceeded by the pleasure they're getting from the sex, they're stuck in a very sorry situation. Not at all to be advised.
Shortly after I split up with my first wife (because there were so few good books on relationship skills back then and I had not heard of poly) I was listening to a fellow complain about how women like bad boys rather than nice guys. Yes, and what many women really love is gentlemen who know how to be bad when appropriate (sometimes wearing leather and acting tough helps but we also know that the gentle core is usually part of the attraction even if misunderstood).
Passion is sexy. Intelligent management of passions is sexier still (on average I think). People delight in many things but for the most part, those delights can be experienced in the container of healthy mutually supportive relationships.
Possibly people get into trouble when they see their desires in conflict rather than as a dance. Not to knock a dance style because they are mostly examples of refined passion but Tango is a different sort of sexy than Moshing.
Aside from the hormonal arousal, in mating people are often looking for a genetic and memetic display that suggests fitness outside of culture (genes last longer than cultures and travel among cultures). What range of scenarios can the offspring survive? That is counterbalanced by: How well will the mate provide for children? The monogamy/polyamory balance is similar but also looks at the community. Not that children are the only point of sex, and not that humans are helpless to their genes but these things are pretty basic.
Possibly anger is ranked low because people are thinking about the survey rather than fucking it. Still, it's fundamentally a passionate display of a wide range of emotions rather than anger as such I would suspect is appealing.
No one really understands this stuff because humans balance so many strategies. However, we can understand it better. Genes are clever and so are brains. People can find the sexy part, consider its purpose, and generally work together. Sexuality can be a high art form and anger is a bold color.
From personal experience, I would say it is "easy" to match the intensity of angry makeup sex of a wide variety of ways and also to experience angry makeup sex in healthy ways. After many intense months with a later lover we had our first upsetting argument (this was after breaking the furniture which was more fun than an angry romp). I was mad enough that I decided a long walk was better than shutting down (neither being optimal but we try). I was thinking about splitting up but returned after an hour or so ready to discuss feelings. She had restrained and displayed herself on the bed. I thought about walking away for about a second but decided her resolution to the argument was superior. After what I assume was pretty good sex and thinking I had accepted her apology I ask her why she did that. She said, "because you needed it." Okay, I really didn't but after we had gotten out of sex mode, dressed, etc. I said, "We both have a thousand other options and we could both walk out the door in one minute and not return but I'm glad we are choosing to be together and there is no place I would rather be." If I remember correctly we still have not resolved that particular argument about how to raise children but I think we could discuss it calmly and passionately with more of a yin/yang understanding. The balance between control and freedom is a challenging and nuanced discussion, but I think I am getting beyond the anger topic.
What I see missing from my response to your thoughts is consideration of how we can help people who get stuck in behavioral cycles which are understandable but don't support mutual flourishing. That's a complex and varied puzzle but an understanding of the motivations and better models of a wide variety of better solutions seems like a good approach. Also, the legal system really could use a more collaborative rewrite because much of what happens in bedrooms is a reflection of the larger cultures. It's a step towards non-destructive passion and a path I want to keep walking.
On a personal level if people do not yet have the right sort of partners for passionate play there are many other constructive outlets (martial arts, dance, music, acting, etc.) and those can be ways to express/display emotion that also tend to lead to cooperative partnerships. Different levels of passion and intelligence are something I find more challenging, especially in a monogamous context. Often the answer is changing partners but someone suggested to me that is best considered after one masters oneself in the relationship one is in.
I'm rambling but it seems like well-established knowledge worth sharing.
What I don't understand is how anyone does NOT find wildness/primalness erotic????? And only half of people said it was?
That literally makes zero sense to me. I swear the more I read her data, the more alienated I feel. This does not compute for me at all, and I start wonder what species is answering these questions.
These are averages. Not everyone fits the average. Not fitting the average is OK. Most women are not engaged in surveying 300K people about kink, but I'm glad one did. ;) As long as you know what *you* find erotic, that's what matters.
Women in particular seem to want to fit in. It's OK to not be an average woman. If you have a level of physical aggression closer to the male mean, take up sports and build a body people find attractive. If you have a geeky personality more common among men, cultivate a geek harem or land a guy who owns a tech company. If you have a high sex drive closer to the male mean, find a compatible fellow or go poly. If you're not average, figure out how to turn that to your advantage. Feminine men have been studying and practicing the arts since time immemorial. ;)
It can also be useful to find the sexy in other people's behavior. One may discover new aspects of oneself but it also leads to more reasonable social understandings.
I once read a study that said gay men have more offspring (which makes sense). My take-home message from the book _Come as You Are_ is that weird is normal. A lot more people vary from the average than match it. Although this study suggests more commonalities.
I did not like the definition of wildness/primalness in that question.
The most romantic film I have ever seen was a Disney Nature Film. Two panthers fight one runs off and we follow the winner. They encounter another panther and a fight again ensues much like the first but after a while they start clawing slower and pretty soon it's love taps and they walk off together (then babies and the male panther fighting crocodiles, giant snakes, etc. while mom lazily watches and the cubs play. Less sure about that part).
When I think primal I think organic, without rules or artifacts. Like when you break the furniture.
One thing that strikes me about erotic emotions (and kinks) is that they are so widely expressed in popular culture. Take grief. Bottom of the list. When my favorite aunt died I went to the funeral with my wife. Afterward, we had passionate sex (mostly brief non-climaxing) about 20 times that day. So my reaction to death and loss was an erotic (so many mirrors) celebration of life while also seeking comfort and companionship. This seemed a bit odd to me but it later was explained in a show I watched as a common reaction to a death. I have since observed this as fairly common in others (with the caveat that death is not so common where I live).
I think there is a difference between the erotic experiences we seek and erotic responses to life. Our cultural stories suggest we respond to and can understand a much wider range of erotic responses than are commonly intellectually identified. In some sense, cinema is often looking at obscure themes but it also often looks at common human reactions to less common events. "Harold and Maude" comes to mind and "Six Feet Under." We don't think of grief as sexy but our stories suggest it does often turn people on.
Aella, after years admiring your FL presentation -- beauty, humor, sensuality -- I'm now struck by the intellectual presentation you bring here. If you know Ken Wilber's work, I liken his revisionist approach to psychology to what you seem to be moving towards -- a far more in-depth understanding of how sexual energy works, from motivation to arousal, behaviors and outcomes (pun intended).
I know you're busy... understatement that must be... but I would like to get your reaction to my theory about the overlap between disciplined Power Exchange, fem empowerment and sacred sexuality; specifically, the ways in which Taoist models, alongside Eiffers and Offringa, seem to show transcendent experience arising from multiple orgasms, extended over time, in women.
How does connect with you on topics of common interest?
Emotional clusters, how emotions correlate when people feel multiple emotions seems interesting. We can guess but I wonder if there is a way to pull it out of the data. How often are emotions pure verses an emotional cocktail and what cocktails do people like? Fairly obvious at the top but maybe not as obvious at the bottom.
So everyone likes to be desired and to fall in love, but the ladies like to be safe (makes sense given the risk) and powerless and for the guy to be primal and smug (but they really don't like it when the guy's powerless), whereas the guys like to be safe and primal but less than half are actually into power play.
You know, Aella, I think they're not after you because you're Not an Official Researcher. I think they're after you because you say all the stuff they've been lying to us about for years. And you've got a sample of hundreds of thousands.
The emperor has no clothes. I hope you keep roasting sacred cows. I like steak.
Seems weird that 70+% of women said they're turned on by feelings of safety for themselves, yet 55% said they were aroused by feelings of vulnerability. Those seem like completely opposite feelings. There's no such thing as safe and vulnerable/powerless at the same time.
I really hate that the more I read your data, the more annoying I find women.
It’s hard to enjoy vulnerability if you don’t feel safe. Unsafe vulnerability is scary which is ranked low on this list.
That doesn't really make sense to me. To be vulnerable is to be in danger, that's what it means. The presence of safety removes the vulnerability, and vice versa.
Unless you're talking about roleplaying/make believe danger? Like a roller-coaster that simulates physical danger for the adrenaline rush of a survival threat, but without any actual danger. Is that what you mean?
I think you're having a definitional issue then. Vulnerable isn't a synonym for danger - it's to be in a position that exposes you to danger. The difference is subtle but meaningful. If someone is not wearing clothing, they're vulnerable to criticisms of their naked appearance. If someone is handcuffed to a bed, they're vulnerable to... all sorts of mental and physical harm.
To take the metaphor out of the bedroom - let's say I want to work with an investor. I trust them, so I decide I am not in danger. I tell them the inner workings of my company, this puts me in a vulnerable position, as they could use this information to cause me harm. In this context (just like in the bedroom) vulnerability indicates trust.
To allow yourself to be vulnerable means you are putting yourself in a position that someone else COULD hurt you. It's possible to be both safe and vulnerable.
There’s a few angles I immediately jump to. First, sex (on the female side) is inherently vulnerable. You’re allowing someone typically significantly stronger than you inside your body. You’re trusting them to act in your preferred demeanor (reverent, romantic, dominant, aggressive, combo, whatever). You’re trusting them to not say you are ugly and gross during or after. That vulnerability/risk can cause adrenaline which is enjoyable. The women that enjoy this might prefer hookups or polyamory. Some women don’t like this type of vulnerability so they only have sex in committed relationships.
The second type of vulnerability is still about the physical power of your partner. Women are typically smaller and weaker, hooking up with a big, strong guy that could do whatever he wants requires you to physically let go of some control. It’s comparable to the intimacy of a secret, it’s vulnerable to share and when someone respects your secret it can bring you closer to them because you feel safe.
To be fair I am a long-term relationship gal so I don’t have a ton of hookup experience but I hope this helps. Let me know if there’s anything that doesn’t make sense. I want you to better understand instead of thinking women are annoying.
You sound like you are having some real issues.
Yes this is about things you find arousing with people they find attractive.
So no the Serial Killer with a gun who is threatening to kill you is not as sexy as the Khal Drogo Guy to most people.
Because Powerlessness is not a discrete state. There are always different kinds of "overwhelming power".
And it is perfectly possible to feel powerless in one situation, but knowing that the person who is "overpowering" you is not gonna kill you, so its kinda "safe".
One can feel safe to be vulnerable. Not in danger but not in control. The world is full of the behavior. I find it better as play to explore emotional states than reality. In an extreme case consider a baby with loving parents; that probably feels nice. Of course people like many things but I'm guessing that's the main sense of it. So evolutionarily and with cultural echos women probably felt safer when they experienced male power because that could protect them, children, etc. but not to the point it was a danger to them. Not as relevant now but people have the same gene pool and it's not yet irrelevant either. I certainly feel safer knowing how dangerous my wife can be but at the safe time it's less comfortable than unthreatening women.
But feeling "safe to be vulnerable" is not the same as feeling vulnerability. It's another way of saying "not actually vulnerable" or "risk of vulnerability reduced to a point of play acting".
The definition of vulnerability is LITERALLY the opposite of safety: "the quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed."
I suppose I was thinking of people being actually turned on by a feeling, when in reality all this is measuring are feelings that may very well be an unpleasant and unavoidable side-effect of the actual source of arousal, which therefore become associated.
So I'm guessing the woman is imagining a scenario where some strong powerful gorgeous barbarian dangerous man wants to ravish her...which would make anyone's ovaries naturally pump out the juices so that one can secure strong powerful gorgeous genes and offspring. But would also make one feel vulnerable -- which is just the unavoidable crappy cost to pay for the asset of the strong barbarian warrior genes. But I guess that all gets wrapped up together in unreasoning associated emotions of horny/scared. Okay fine.
Then I guess the safety/warmth response is the same thing...she's imagining the relief and triumph of getting the barbarian to fall in love.
In reality, both of these scenarios would be a complete turn off if the source of the scary danger was a disgusting dangerous old man weird serial killer rather than Khal Drogo.
Probably the same with men saying someone else being vulnerable is erotic...only because he's imagining a beautiful person who may reject him if not for being powerless. Doubt they're turned on by a vulnerable 80 year old in a diaper whose fallen and can't get up.
All the most popular emotions here are completely revolting in the context of an unattractive person.
Makes me think most people don't really know themselves well anyway. It's weird people ranked anger so low, when my observation is that it's a (super infuriating) reliable aphrodisiac across lots of personality types and both sexes.
Trust games where the vulnerability is real and the safety comes from the person not the physics. Mammals often play trust games so they know who they can count on in real danger. Hierarchy games as well but trust games can be especially nice with equality. It's pretty erotic when someone with a ton of options chooses to be vulnerable and you can barely understand why but then you do.
Sexuality with perpetually vulnerable, dependent and enfeebled people is not high on the list. On the other hand some of the sexiest women I have known were well past reproductive age. When the spark is gone that's different but human sex is often about much more than reproduction. You are probably right in the general case though.
Again assuming competence, consent, etc. most people can be beautiful if they want. All women look the *same with enough orgasms. Though it does take some sort of attractiveness for that to happen.
Anger can be an aphrodisiac. Especially in inexperienced people passions often cluster and it's often hard to measure which emotion with instruments. I fondly recall and argument with my first wife. We were arguing about I don't recall what. I got so mad I yelled "Fuck You" at her (only time ever I think). She looked me in the eye and said "Anytime, anywhere." I'm guessing the sex that followed was pretty good but that's maybe not the best way to get there.
Also the big toe is next to the genitals in the brain.
And it's interesting to consider the top five emotions at once.
And I think your perspectives sound pretty valid.
*Edit: By the same I mean equally attractive but unique.
I think most people have experience with scenarios like you describe with the argument with your first wife. That's why I don't believe the results ranking anger so low. Sure, it's not most people's ideal, but it's definitely a thing. Being in a fight at all implies a worthy adversary, so there's that.
Anger as an aphrodisiac is also a huge part of why so many people have trouble leaving abusive/volatile relationships. No one really wants to talk about it because it's an ugly reality and doesn't garner any sympathy, but a major part of why people have trouble giving them up is because they're usually having off the charts incredible sex. Fight/explosive sex/make up/fight/explosive sex/make up is a difficult addictive cycle to break. It's likely impossible to match that level of intensity in a relationship with someone you get along with calmly and easily, unfortunately. When one's misery with a relationship is only matched or exceeded by the pleasure they're getting from the sex, they're stuck in a very sorry situation. Not at all to be advised.
Shortly after I split up with my first wife (because there were so few good books on relationship skills back then and I had not heard of poly) I was listening to a fellow complain about how women like bad boys rather than nice guys. Yes, and what many women really love is gentlemen who know how to be bad when appropriate (sometimes wearing leather and acting tough helps but we also know that the gentle core is usually part of the attraction even if misunderstood).
Passion is sexy. Intelligent management of passions is sexier still (on average I think). People delight in many things but for the most part, those delights can be experienced in the container of healthy mutually supportive relationships.
Possibly people get into trouble when they see their desires in conflict rather than as a dance. Not to knock a dance style because they are mostly examples of refined passion but Tango is a different sort of sexy than Moshing.
Aside from the hormonal arousal, in mating people are often looking for a genetic and memetic display that suggests fitness outside of culture (genes last longer than cultures and travel among cultures). What range of scenarios can the offspring survive? That is counterbalanced by: How well will the mate provide for children? The monogamy/polyamory balance is similar but also looks at the community. Not that children are the only point of sex, and not that humans are helpless to their genes but these things are pretty basic.
Possibly anger is ranked low because people are thinking about the survey rather than fucking it. Still, it's fundamentally a passionate display of a wide range of emotions rather than anger as such I would suspect is appealing.
No one really understands this stuff because humans balance so many strategies. However, we can understand it better. Genes are clever and so are brains. People can find the sexy part, consider its purpose, and generally work together. Sexuality can be a high art form and anger is a bold color.
From personal experience, I would say it is "easy" to match the intensity of angry makeup sex of a wide variety of ways and also to experience angry makeup sex in healthy ways. After many intense months with a later lover we had our first upsetting argument (this was after breaking the furniture which was more fun than an angry romp). I was mad enough that I decided a long walk was better than shutting down (neither being optimal but we try). I was thinking about splitting up but returned after an hour or so ready to discuss feelings. She had restrained and displayed herself on the bed. I thought about walking away for about a second but decided her resolution to the argument was superior. After what I assume was pretty good sex and thinking I had accepted her apology I ask her why she did that. She said, "because you needed it." Okay, I really didn't but after we had gotten out of sex mode, dressed, etc. I said, "We both have a thousand other options and we could both walk out the door in one minute and not return but I'm glad we are choosing to be together and there is no place I would rather be." If I remember correctly we still have not resolved that particular argument about how to raise children but I think we could discuss it calmly and passionately with more of a yin/yang understanding. The balance between control and freedom is a challenging and nuanced discussion, but I think I am getting beyond the anger topic.
What I see missing from my response to your thoughts is consideration of how we can help people who get stuck in behavioral cycles which are understandable but don't support mutual flourishing. That's a complex and varied puzzle but an understanding of the motivations and better models of a wide variety of better solutions seems like a good approach. Also, the legal system really could use a more collaborative rewrite because much of what happens in bedrooms is a reflection of the larger cultures. It's a step towards non-destructive passion and a path I want to keep walking.
On a personal level if people do not yet have the right sort of partners for passionate play there are many other constructive outlets (martial arts, dance, music, acting, etc.) and those can be ways to express/display emotion that also tend to lead to cooperative partnerships. Different levels of passion and intelligence are something I find more challenging, especially in a monogamous context. Often the answer is changing partners but someone suggested to me that is best considered after one masters oneself in the relationship one is in.
I'm rambling but it seems like well-established knowledge worth sharing.
I see no contradiction in it. Different scenarios may turn us on. Just like men find both romance and primalness erotic. :P
What I don't understand is how anyone does NOT find wildness/primalness erotic????? And only half of people said it was?
That literally makes zero sense to me. I swear the more I read her data, the more alienated I feel. This does not compute for me at all, and I start wonder what species is answering these questions.
These are averages. Not everyone fits the average. Not fitting the average is OK. Most women are not engaged in surveying 300K people about kink, but I'm glad one did. ;) As long as you know what *you* find erotic, that's what matters.
Women in particular seem to want to fit in. It's OK to not be an average woman. If you have a level of physical aggression closer to the male mean, take up sports and build a body people find attractive. If you have a geeky personality more common among men, cultivate a geek harem or land a guy who owns a tech company. If you have a high sex drive closer to the male mean, find a compatible fellow or go poly. If you're not average, figure out how to turn that to your advantage. Feminine men have been studying and practicing the arts since time immemorial. ;)
It can also be useful to find the sexy in other people's behavior. One may discover new aspects of oneself but it also leads to more reasonable social understandings.
I once read a study that said gay men have more offspring (which makes sense). My take-home message from the book _Come as You Are_ is that weird is normal. A lot more people vary from the average than match it. Although this study suggests more commonalities.
I did not like the definition of wildness/primalness in that question.
The most romantic film I have ever seen was a Disney Nature Film. Two panthers fight one runs off and we follow the winner. They encounter another panther and a fight again ensues much like the first but after a while they start clawing slower and pretty soon it's love taps and they walk off together (then babies and the male panther fighting crocodiles, giant snakes, etc. while mom lazily watches and the cubs play. Less sure about that part).
When I think primal I think organic, without rules or artifacts. Like when you break the furniture.
Look at the gaps!
Smugness. Who knew.
All my gf’s, obviously.
One thing that strikes me about erotic emotions (and kinks) is that they are so widely expressed in popular culture. Take grief. Bottom of the list. When my favorite aunt died I went to the funeral with my wife. Afterward, we had passionate sex (mostly brief non-climaxing) about 20 times that day. So my reaction to death and loss was an erotic (so many mirrors) celebration of life while also seeking comfort and companionship. This seemed a bit odd to me but it later was explained in a show I watched as a common reaction to a death. I have since observed this as fairly common in others (with the caveat that death is not so common where I live).
I think there is a difference between the erotic experiences we seek and erotic responses to life. Our cultural stories suggest we respond to and can understand a much wider range of erotic responses than are commonly intellectually identified. In some sense, cinema is often looking at obscure themes but it also often looks at common human reactions to less common events. "Harold and Maude" comes to mind and "Six Feet Under." We don't think of grief as sexy but our stories suggest it does often turn people on.
I wish I could write such articles, I can then increase traffic to your website. Please some tips on how to do it if it is a long https://americasuits.com/the-summer-i-turned-pretty-jermiah-hoodie phase process?
It seems that women are is higher than men on most things. I wonder what it'd look like if you normalized men and women separately for each category.
Aella, after years admiring your FL presentation -- beauty, humor, sensuality -- I'm now struck by the intellectual presentation you bring here. If you know Ken Wilber's work, I liken his revisionist approach to psychology to what you seem to be moving towards -- a far more in-depth understanding of how sexual energy works, from motivation to arousal, behaviors and outcomes (pun intended).
I know you're busy... understatement that must be... but I would like to get your reaction to my theory about the overlap between disciplined Power Exchange, fem empowerment and sacred sexuality; specifically, the ways in which Taoist models, alongside Eiffers and Offringa, seem to show transcendent experience arising from multiple orgasms, extended over time, in women.
How does connect with you on topics of common interest?
William
Emotional clusters, how emotions correlate when people feel multiple emotions seems interesting. We can guess but I wonder if there is a way to pull it out of the data. How often are emotions pure verses an emotional cocktail and what cocktails do people like? Fairly obvious at the top but maybe not as obvious at the bottom.
These are interesting stats