Hi Dennis,(I'm not sure where this study was done, but I believe it was atHarvard Medical School. I could be wrong, but I know it was at an IvyLeague Med school somewhere in the northeast.)Recently, a study was done where they hooked up thousands of differenttypes of people up to sensors and studied brain activity. I believe itwas a couple thousand woman and a couple thousand men from alldifferent ages, races, religions, nationalities, cultures, incomelevels, etc. Then the volunteers were showed pornography.Well we all know almost all guys love porn, and girls generally don't like that stuff, right?But the results were astonishing.They found that women's brains responded more positively to porn and that they were more sexually aroused than the men were.It also showed that women were aroused by ALL types of pornography.Straight, girl on girl, guy on guy, sex with animals, transvestites,midgets etc.Yet the guys were only turned on by straight or girl on girl porn. The other types of porn didn't really make a difference.And, even though the men got aroused, the men didn't get as aroused as the women got.WOW!!! So that's totally different than what society thinks...huh?Oh yeah, and they are wondering if that's a reason many gay women tend to be bisexual and gay men tend to be only gay.================Hello!I'm rather suspect of the interpretation this sort of "research", but I haven't seen this study yet.First of all, measuring the brain to establish sexual response ishighly counter-productive. The brain responds to many stimuli in verydifferent ways and even differently in different people. Measuringactivity doesn't show "excitement" or "titillation" or anything of thesort.The traditional way to measure sexual response isn't through brainwaves at all as they are extremely difficult to decipher - everyone'sbrain is laid out in different ways! The more direct, specific and morereliable way to measure sexual response is by measuring blood flow tothe genitals. It's a very specific indicator of sexual excitement. Thattells me that this study wasn't measuring sexual response at all; or ifit was, it was highly flawed.Second, what's the point and who is making the determination of the meaning of the results? Let me give you an example:A quite-famous, highly-controlled study was done using the brain todetermine what areas were directly involved in speech: particularly,which areas were used for vocalization and which were used forinterpretation.The researchers found something rather interesting - that women use about twice the brain area for interpretation that men use.The media quickly jumped on this with headlines such as "Women aretwice as good at interpreting speech as men!" Seems fair doesn't it? Itsure seems to fit a desired belief - which sells newspapers!The researchers came out after this media storm to say, "Actually, itprobably doesn't mean that at all - what it seems to indicate is thatmen only NEED TO USE 1/2 the area that women need to do the same thing."That's a pretty different result, don't you think? You see, the layinterpretation of the results were motivated by a particular agenda -not science. That's why when I hear about these sorts of studies toinclude interpretations that I have to suspect the motivation behindthem and the methods used to "discover" them.What's the assumption here? That women are more sexual than men? Why isthat important? The message itself is totally irrelevant if that's thecase! What seems to be going on is that an agenda has been formed (justas was yours in writing this to me) to imply something that isextremely popular today, but frankly, totally without merit: that womenare exactly like men; or even more masculine than men, and that ourunderstanding of ourselves is wrong. This is a highly liberal socialagenda that has permeated the "woman's world" that is western societytoday.Here's what I believe about sexuality between men and women: they areequal from the standpoint that they affect us individually, but carryVERY different motivations. Women aren't more "sexual" than men, andmen aren't more "emotional" than women. We both have different traitsthat work for and benefit us to thrive as a species.Instead of trying to show study after study that supposedly "proves"that women are "...just like men..." or "...more sexual than men..." or"...better than men..." (or whatever the agenda) we should not onlyaccept the fact that we're very, very different, but embrace and evenexploit those differences to everyone's benefit.Best regards...------------------------------------------------------------------Have a love, dating, relationship, sex or man/woman question? You canwrite to me by going to: http://beingaman.com/ask_question.asp foranswers. For more information about my books, "Being a Man in a Woman'sWorldtm" (volumes I and II), and other products visit:www.beingaman.com. Check out the discussion group at:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beingaman and check out the new BAM! TVat http://beingaman.tvCopyright (c) 2008, Dr. Dennis W. NederAll rights reserved.