Neither of you are wrong in some sense, but neither are you right. You draw conclusions without taking into account certain knowledge that even the most advanced sciences regarding the psyche cannot yet explain with certainty.
I didn't draw conclusions. I passed on the conclusions reached by the researchers. It is, of course, possible that they were wrong, but that would have to be demonstrated.
You say that even the most advanced sciences cannot explain it with certainty. I actually agree, but if that is so, then you also cannot explain it with certainty. And I'm not prepared to accept the opinions of a stranger on the internet in preference to the available research, unless the stranger on the internet can provide me with better data and a compelling argument.
But one thing is certain. The organs, whatever they may be, don't know how to react at all, and by that I mean, neither positively nor negatively, without the approval of the brain.
This is certain, is it? My understanding from your previous comments in this thread is that your past experience is in the fashion industry, not neurochemistry. Have I misunderstood? Are you also an expert in human neurological response?
Also, what do you mean by "the approval of the brain"? Do you mean the conscious approval of the thinking mind? Do you mean the unconscious approval of the emotional state? Or do you simply mean that the physical organ, the brain, processes the impulses from the nerve endings and sends directions back to the various parts of the body?
So to say that a woman, or even a man, can react positively to external stimuli from the sensory zones, and here, let's just talk about the herogenic zones since this is the subject that concerns us, without the subject being mentally predisposed to accept them, is an error, and this is not at all what the aforementioned study demonstrates.
So you read the study in its entirety? That's how you can state with confidence that my previous post did not reflect what was shown in the study, despite the fact that the abstract of the study given by the researchers states more or less the same thing I said?
We don't have to look very far to see a problem with your claim. Take the case of male patients in comas who have orgasmed as a pleasure response to medical treatment. Not only is it possible for a human being to have a pleasure response, up to and including orgasm, without being mentally predisposed to accept it, it is even possible for this to happen without the possibility of the person being aware that it has happened. Or consider the testimony of some of the rape victims who have orgasmed during their rapes, and who have stated emphatically that they did not want it and tried to stop it from happening, as is the testimony of some of male victims of "rape by envelopment" by women. Can you demonstrate that, contrary to their testimony of the event, they were mentally predisposed to accept the stimulus and pleasure? How will you demonstrate it?
In the case of these 5% of women who can experience pleasure, even having an orgasm while being raped, we must understand one essential thing. Not everyone reacts in the same way to a risky situation.
The fact that not everyone reacts the same way to a risky situation was implied in the data I offered. In fact, it was
the point of my previous post. If 5% of women have a reaction which is different to the experience of 95% of women, then it is necessary to conclude that not everyone reacts the same way.
Danger causes reactions in the body's metabolism which can be very powerful. A person prepared for dangerous situations will not react in the same way as a person who does not have this mental preparation, and their reflexes will be very different. Her brain is invaded by hormones which place her in such an intense stressful situation that it is impossible for her to react actively to her attacker. His legs are trembling, his breathing is short, his heart rate is accelerating, and his thoughts are saturated with fear. Under these conditions, the brain places itself and the entire body in a state of survival. She can't defend herself, she can't escape, and even the thought of calling for help makes her fear making things worse. The only way for this woman to survive is submission. In this state, neither his character, nor her convictions, nor any of the atoms in her body can resist wanting to survive. And satisfying his attacker becomes a goal that will allow her to survive. This woman's brain will refuse to inhibit her herogenic zones, because it is a question of survival, an animal reflex. And she could even enjoy more intensely than with the best of her lovers
Here are two points about what you just wrote.
First, when you're talking about metabolic changes and hormonal changes, you're talking about involuntary responses. Changes in a metabolic or hormonal level are unconscious and involuntary, not conscious and voluntary. In other words, this scenario which you are describing supports my point, that people (women or men) can experience pleasure responses without intent, without consent, and even against their wills.
Second, regarding your statements about a woman choosing to submit to her attacker and trying to satisfy him as a defense mechanism, yes, we do know that this happens. But where is the evidence which shows that these women who choose to submit to their rapists are always the same women as the 5% who experience sexual arousal and orgasm? Do you have some data which links submitting to rape with enjoyment? It's quite possible that there is an overlap between the two groups, but we would need some very solid data to show a causal relationship between these two things. So far, you haven't offered any data.
