But what determines what turns us on sexually? This is the question in God's knowledge, because sexual arousal has many psychological and physiological levels. There is no clear answer here. But two different psychological theories that try to explain social understanding and emotion, could be of help to us
Recently I was a guest on the "Doctor Why" radio show, withRoey Tsezana from the other science blog. Roy presented me with the interesting question, following the recent current events: Is there really a "voice in a pubic woman?", that is, does women's singing really stimulate men sexually, and if so, how does it happen?
But what determines what turns us on sexually? This is the question in God's knowledge, because sexual arousal has many psychological and physiological levels. There is no clear answer here. But two different psychological theories that try to explain social understanding and emotion, could be of help to us.
Social learning theory would suggest that we learn, in a social way, what is sexual in our society. Watching others, and trying to understand and imitate them, is what makes us who we are and inculcates social values in us, including values of modesty, gender (what is "feminine" and what is "masculine") and sexual attraction. For example, it is socialization that makes a bare female chest sexual and erotic in today's culture, while in many parts of the world, women go bare chested as part of everyday life. It is easy to recall African tribes where the custom of the bare chest exists, and in fact this was the case in most parts of the world until recently, with the penetration of Christianity and Western concepts of "modesty". That is, what today is "undeniably sexual", was until recently a part of normal behavior and exposing or hiding the breast depends on the dress code. So - we learn with puberty what is sexual and arousing, what is allowed and what is not allowed to reveal. If in the past exposing an ankle or a knee was sexual, today in our culture there are very few body parts left that are "hidden" and arousing, but - in other cultures, perhaps also in the ultra-Orthodox ones, the female voice is defined and taught as "immodest" and therefore - there are those who define it as "arousing" ".
Another or perhaps complementary approach is the arousal theory, which observes in a neuropsychological way and offers another way to decipher emotions in general, and sexual emotions in particular. According to this theory, first we experience an emotion through our body - an automatic series of actions occurs in response to exciting events. The blood pressure rises, you feel palpitations, your face flushes, you sweat a little and you get excited. It is a physiological response to some event. Later on, without us noticing, the slightly more conscious part of us comes and gives that physiological excitement-arousal - interpretation and explanation, according to our will and thought. If we are in an environment that we have decided is a bit worrying for us - we will interpret the emotion as fear. If we are near a stimulus that is considered sexual - we will interpret the very same physical sensation - as a sexual stimulus. We will call the emotion by its name and define it according to how we decided to treat it. The physical excitement will arise and some of us will decide that it is the ecstasy of a high art, and others will call it sexual stimulation, or just loathe it.
These two approaches can explain how we examine stimuli and the emotional response to them. But what can science tell us about the brain systems that are activated in response to sexual stimulation? Are they at all different between a man hearing a female voice, compared to a woman hearing a male voice? Why are the limitations of modesty imposed on one public?
Well…. You can always blame the men. Do men's brains behave differently than women's? Indeed, imaging studies have shown that when men watch a sexually arousing situation, their brain activity is greater than women who watched the same situations, even when women reported feeling a lot of sexual arousal (Article 1). The areas where this activity occurs, which were found to be related to sexual stimulation, are in the limbic system, an ancient and primary system in our brain, and within this system, the researchers describe two specific areas called the amygdala and the hypothalamus.
The amygdala, that almond-like organ located inside the brain, processes emotions in general, and in particular works in intense emotional states - fear or reward. The hypothalamus is a cluster of nuclei that is linked both to the front of the brain and to internal and earlier areas, and is related, among other things, to smell and the activation of hormones. Perfume, scents, and pheromones in themselves are linked to sexual behavior, but recently an extensive discussion is developing and even arouses controversy about the connection between the hypothalamus and sexual activity, especially about a cell nucleus called SDN (Sexually dimorphic nucleus) within the hypothalamus. This area is found to be significantly different in size in males than in females, develops differently in females and males in the womb, (second article) and is even found to differ in its function in those with different sexual orientations (homosexuals vs. heterosexuals), which has raised speculations about different function between the sexes and among those with preferences different sexualities.
So there is a difference in sexual behavior and sexual arousal among men. Men are more aroused, at least in the face of sexual stimulation in a distinct way. And here we return to the main point, to the unclear way in which we decide what is "distinctly sexual". For example, in the imaging study from the previous paragraph, the researchers projected video clips of couples making love, and examined brain sexual arousal while watching such scenes. A couple making love is indeed a very sexual event, for most people. On the other hand, there are those who, as long as they do not participate in the experience themselves, will not define it as arousing. And we have already discussed that the very definition of sexual stimulation depends on culture and giving a private meaning.
So we can - probably - learn that almost every stimulus around us is sexual, provided that society "wires" us to think that way, and we have a tendency in this direction. In addition, if we are in any emotional situation, the limbic system in our brain will wake up, and intense emotions will activate the amygdala, the hypothalamus, as well as other brain networks related to emotions to work. When we analyze and think about what we are watching - we will give a name to that excitement, and decide in which direction to channel it, and how to drive in that situation. In the end - each of us will put the fence of modesty and his own meaning to what he experiences, in front of brain and physical mechanisms that arise. The control is in our hands, just like deciding what is sexual and what is not.
Because it has already been said before that the largest erotic organ in our body is the brain.
Scientific articles I referred to
S Hamann, RA Herman, CL Nolan (2004) Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli. Nature Neuroscience
KM Lenz, MM McCarthy (2010) Organized for sex - steroid hormones and the developing hypothalamus. European Journal of Neuroscience
עAnd on the topic on the science website:
26 תגובות
Banning a woman's voice is actually silencing her. Let no one tell me that a woman's song or a woman's lecture excites him.
These are neutral/pure things and there is nothing sexually stimulating about them.
Eliyahu also confused the mind, precisely in places where nudity is forbidden, naked women are seen as tempting, allowed, inviting.
For example, on nudist beaches - there is no sexual atmosphere.
But when an ultra-Orthodox sees a woman in her tank top, he stares at her obsessively like there's no tomorrow, while an ultra-Orthodox from a different stream moves his gaze (usually there are 2 types of ultra-Orthodox..those who sexually harass and stare more than the average person..
and those who deliberately and brutally transcend the woman as if she were the devil and as if her existence should not be taken into account).
By the way, according to the Jewish religion - the woman has a much higher libido than the man. For example, a widow is not allowed to return a dog because of the fear that she will sleep with him (and there is no such prohibition for a man), or for example a woman is allowed to have intercourse with two men, because they claim that the 2 men will protect each other and not be tempted, while 2 women are not allowed to have intercourse with one man, because 2 The women will not be ashamed of each other and will jump on him straight away, in addition they also describe the 3-year-old girls as having sexual needs and tell about someone who claimed that she had sex before the age of 3 and enjoyed them (is there more shocking bullshit than that?), they also write that one of the woman's punishments is that she You will never be able to reach satisfaction alone and you will always need a man for that, in addition they claim that the woman's libido and lust enslave her to her husband and that her lust causes her to be irrational and that she does what she wants without seeing the newborn (a description that fits exactly the male sex)..and more and more Places where it is written that a woman's libido is higher than a man's.
This is of course not true. First - of course they ignored the fact that there is asexuality (like me for example), second - it is much easier for a woman to reach orgasm when she is alone with her fantasies and the like than with a man (a high percentage of women have difficulty reaching orgasm with a man), third - the man's libido is It is the one who enslaves him to the woman and not the other way around. A woman does not have sexual desire at such a level that can enslave her. On the contrary, she controls her desire much better (regulatory mechanisms, etc.), fourth - 2 men will be tempted to sleep with someone or rape her, much more than a situation where 2 women will be tempted to sleep with someone, fifth - men have been observed having relations with animals voluntarily And out of excessive lust. Women don't (except for paid/porn), sixth - men complain much more about the lack of desire of their wives than vice versa, seventh - women are not able to finish with the same one (if they finish at all) for a long time and need variety, while a man can finish with the same one (and even ugly) for many years (although most of them might want to and can end up with a lot of women).
In short, the Jewish religion is wrong here as well and if we follow Judaism, then the men should be hidden and not the women, because they are the ones who claim that "their desire is greater than the men's", "because she created a great one").
The religious conclusion is that one must listen to the commandments of the Sages and Razals without any connection to logic and even though from the point of view of religion the woman has a higher sexual desire (we wish we were dreamers..in short a good joke), the women should be hidden simply because that is what it says and this must be obeyed .
The logical and feminist conclusion is - they simply want to silence the woman and prevent her social influence.
And a society without female influence is, as we know, a rotten society, a society of multiple spawning (quantity vs. quality), a society of failures and ignorant people.
PS - Many of the ultra-Orthodox who go to prostitutes or seek sexual and other relationships for themselves in their free time also oppose the influence of women and the presentation of her face on billboards and in newspapers...including even a woman's name.
And the women, because they experience harassment, etc., take it in the direction of "I'm more comfortable this way...that I'm not bothered" and think that the religious establishment is doing this for their benefit. After all, even as secular they can go covered. Who banned them?
They attribute to religion things that do not exist in me, according to their convenience.
Another rabbi will emerge and claim that women should shut themselves up at home, not because it's dangerous for them outside, but because they endanger men with their lasciviousness and their tendency to seduce and rape men.
In any case, there will be excuses for why to lock women at home. When in fact, there are much stronger factual arguments that support the male kilat in houses.
Point, aren't you tired of being evil and an idiot?
And the use of "a voice in a pubic woman" is to silence women and continue to have a negative impact on society, until the rest of the free inosip. As soon as a woman has no voice, it is permissible to rape her.
They could have used any other stupid sentence.
Prohibition of singing is already a unique matter for Judaism.
to Eliyahu from Haifa
The gatekeeper's response showed you how important it is to understand the scriptures and know the facts,
Yes: - I wasn't talking about "races",
- The first humans who settled Europe were dressed simply because it was cold,
Therefore, in a society where the majority were clothed, nakedness was a rare phenomenon and therefore produced
Attraction, an attraction created by the discovery of what is normally hidden,
And again your reference to "free sex" in societies where everyone is naked...
simply stems from a lack of knowledge and is not true.
In primary societies where, because of the climate, there is no need for clothes... there is none
More sexual permissiveness than in clothed companies.
- In such companies perfumes are not used, the use of perfumes in clothed companies
stems from the need to neutralize "body odor" - or as you define it, "pheromones",
- The perfume manufacturers produce perfumes that are pleasant to the nose but also bleed
the pheromones, this is to create sexual attraction.
And finally, because the clothed society produces artificial means of attraction
The need arose to enact laws and amend regulations that would prevent the instinctive reaction
The instinct for artificially created attraction.
And again following the gatekeeper's response - before you continue to respond
You should know that you understood what was written.
to Eliyahu from Haifa
In a previous response I tried to show the importance of writing and speaking in understandable language
And you showed my justification since Assaf did indeed write primitive and in parentheses initial
And in your response you showed how despite Asaf's attempt to give the Hebrew concept
You did not understand ,
So, for your information, primitive means initial - not like the inferior interpretation,
Man gave the monkey family the name primate not because he thought they were "inferior"
but because he placed them at the top of the mammal ladder,
that is, the first
The trouble is that you are not the only one who misunderstands the concept of primitive is property
Many and good, a misguided preacher because of which all your arguments are not worth the place,
If you knew and understood the concept, you might have reacted differently,
That is why once again understanding what is written is important to avoid mistakes.
Lasaf - tell yourself whatever you want, but it won't change the facts.
The facts are:
- that treating a woman as a tool to fulfill one's needs, from whom it is not necessary to obtain any consent, because a lack of consent will lead to violence and murder - is a very extreme view.
- that you started talking about primitiveness and inferior races - without any reasonable excuse.
The discussion here is about nudity as a characteristic of sexual availability and permissiveness. Is modern Europe where nudity is accepted primitive and inferior?
Were the periods in Europe when nudity was acceptable "primitive" periods?
- The fact is that every person has instincts that he does not control, and that influence his judgment. And sexual arousal is one of them. For example, the smell of pheromones does not cause a conscious effect, but it does cause physiological phenomena (although they are weak in strength).
- Also, we are not talking about nudity as an "invitation", but as an automatic response of the brain - sexual arousal that significantly affects judgment. After it appears, one must decide whether to interpret it as a sexual invitation and act on it, go to exercise the arousal with another person, do other things until the sexual arousal fades, or alternatively - try to avoid the sexual arousal in advance.
The argument that we are robots that completely control every aspect of our bodies is completely baseless.
to Eliyahu from Haifa
I don't know where your information comes from as it is not true that "African societies where you go bare chested, there is a very extreme sexual code where every single woman is "allowed" to any man whether she is interested or not".
it's simple …. vanity
Primitive tribes in Africa have a different moral code than the social code in Western society,
Different but not "extreme" …..
"Every single woman is "allowed" to any man whether she is interested or not" is the nonsense born from the arrogant attitude of those who see Africans as an inferior "race",
An attitude that stems from….. ignorance,
Anyone who interprets nudity as an "invitation" to sexual contact belongs to a society where (real) symbols of sexual attraction have become forbidden
(taboo), a prohibition that created a system of symbols and hints that stand between them and (natural) sexual attraction
Laws, regulations and social conventions created as a result of the need to replace the loss of moral inhibitions,
Inhibitions in primary membership exist.
Theories abound - but it is necessary to train for reality, something that is sorely lacking in Shani's article.
In reality - there is a strong match between the societies where there is permissiveness in clothing (for example walking bare chested) and sexual permissiveness.
In those African societies where they go bare chested, there is a very extreme sex code where every single woman is "allowed" to any man whether she is interested or not.
And in Europe, there is a match between the periods when aristocratic women went bare-chested - with significant sexual permissiveness in that period.
So it's not really a "decision" to interpret a naked woman as a sexual invitation - but rather an automatic response of the brain, which causes the secretion of hormones and irrational actions (which for some of us will be "pleasant" and for others "unpleasant"), in addition to the conscious interpretation.
The whole issue of preserving modesty in general stems from this issue - the desire for sexual permissiveness to be a marginal phenomenon,
And that's exactly where the opposition to modesty rules comes from - to a completely absurd level.
The "opponents of purity" will come up and explain why instead of saying in Hebrew:
Simulation means simulation
situation -“- situation
Information -“- Information
Conspiracy -“- conspiracy
inspiration -“- inspiration
And so on foreign concepts that have Hebrew words.
And then they will consider what is more correct to tilt a foreign concept to the plural - situations
Or tilting the Hebrew concept - situations.
The supporters of the "development" of the language will come up and explain the justification for using empty words:
Like, some, actually, the truth, "some kind of"
And so on, pointless words that have no place in a proper sentence,
It is true that the division of numbers into male and female... Difficult, but why not maintain syntax and grammar rules,
Why allow collective nouns to be inflected for the plural: bread, weapons, car, information, dust and so on?
They will come up from the sides of opening the language to new expressions (slang from the street) and explain: What is this?
Because the "Zati" is taking a prominent place in the media,
It may be necessary to compile a Hebrew-Ilgat dictionary so that Hebrew speakers and Ilgat speakers
Will they understand each other?
Only explanations as requested above will justify the illegal use of Leaz.
For we will remember that "life and death are in the hand of the tongue".
I see the article
Abby, you don't see the article, but only the comments, please take care
And the agreement on what is "prison language" and what is "synagogue language" is the product of a lot of social interaction and negotiation over many years. Language is a living and dynamic thing.
And I also raise an eyebrow about the last paragraph of the article. Didactic tone and somewhat strange in the last sentences.
Try to speak Shabbat Hebrew in prison and I promise you will get beaten and this will happen even if you speak prison language in the synagogue
The person is definitely evident in his clothing and especially in his language, the gatekeeper but did not explain himself and took a flag that was not his
Language is definitely a social thing,
But maintaining it is important not only for preservation,
but so that we can better express our thoughts and ideas.
Think how miserable a person can be who has a brilliant idea,
But he can't express it in words...
By the way, the definition of a 'Hebrew word' is also a convention, unlike 'a word of Hebrew origin' which belongs to research.
Words like 'balloon' and 'brush' are completely Hebrew words, regardless of whether the source is English (balloon, brush) or Yiddish (balon, barsht).
Halachically, the attitude towards modesty also depends on social conventions.
'Ben Ish Chai' says that a woman's breast during breastfeeding is not a place that needs to be covered (Nam Leksh and Neti), because it was customary among them (Baghdad) for women to breastfeed in public places as well.
The clothing says that the ruling of the Sefer Chassidim not to bless (summit) at a mixed meal of seven blessings is no longer valid, because with them it was customary to mix food at meals as well, and therefore does not cause reflection or be perceived as something sexual.
This perception (that modesty and penetrations are defined according to conventions) is the mainstream among the judges. (From what I've seen at least)
Tamar Elam Gindin in an interview with Yaron London is recommended to the zealous etymologist
It is indeed clear that the linguistic challenge is too broad. Yesterday I found a word in Italian whose obvious origin is both Arabic and Hebrew sciabica, which according to the dictionary means a trawl and in Arabic the word shabka is a fishing net just like a trellis
The subject is fascinating and broad. Explain to the honorable gatekeeper that the word Arsenal originates in the Semitic language and here we are touching on a journey of words between languages. I recommend hearing what is there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek3M-bQWwd
It's surprising how many words Hebrew has absorbed over the years of its life, and on the other hand, Zil Gomor is the gatekeeper
Muti, our resources are limited, unfortunately there are more urgent things every day.
If someone would be willing to write a scientific article at a popular level with references to more in-depth articles, I would be happy to publish.
In any case, an upcoming article is the article by Dr. Aharon Hauptman - to speak Chinese in Hebrew
I challenge the website to address the above comments in the article, professionally, about the natural assimilation of languages, thus closing the gap on his puritanical claim (not to mention puritanical of the gatekeeper, to his knowledge, even the word air is covered in Greek, yes, the word port, shutter, population, and more, during the Mishnah, there were no important Puritans The word "air" does not appear in the Bible even once, and the port of Doron was also derived from the Greek.
other
The topic is undoubtedly of interest to many and certainly on this site,
But after reading the article itself, I think
The editing, from the point of view of the next to read material about science
or on topics in his field, not so appropriate here.
The gatekeeper, what exactly are you guarding? Language is a social matter, there is nothing more to it than that. Anyone who wants can invent words to their heart's content. What exactly are you guarding?
Dear Yair
It's a shame that the curse is taking over the speakers of the "Hebrew" language,
It's even more of a shame that the banter also takes over the written language,
The concepts you mentioned as well as many other concepts that you copied into Hebrew
ending in - yah - they are foreign, while in the foreign language the ending is different,
When a foreign term has a Hebrew word, it is not necessary and incorrect to write in a foreign language,
When instead of situations they write situations.... it's silly,
The spoken and written language is full of unnecessary and ridiculous language
And attempts to give Laez a "correct" place in writing do not add up,
When there are professional concepts it is difficult for them to find words in Hebrew... Mila.
But when writing (and speaking) in Lez instead of Hebrew...
The result is ugly.
Dear Gatekeeper,
The words situations and specific are Hebrew words from foreign sources, just like the words Avrach, Lapid, Mekurval, Moriah and hundreds of other words in the Tanakh and thousands of words in the Talmud.
The truth is I am secular and as a man there is nothing about a woman that does not attract me..
Even if she is covered only the talabini may not be attractive but I believe that there are men for whom it does it too. Men think from below, it's bigger than us, it's our nature, and it's the only thing that interests all men, some more and some less, but they are all slaves to creation and this has been known for thousands of years and in all religions.
Everything is interesting, but why not write in Hebrew?
Why write "Situation"? When you can write situations,
Why write "S.P.P.Y.M."? can be unique,
And so on foreign concepts that have correct and precise Hebrew words,
What's more, the inflection of a foreign concept to the plural in Hebrew sounds awkward,
It is possible, desirable and correct to write in Hebrew
I understood, "the decision of what is sexual and what is not is in our hands". From this I can conclude that Shani Wiedergorn is/is (depending on what you decide) a prototype model of a futuristic robot.