Recently I read an article about women’s sexuality. In general, that article presented three different approaches regarding the genesis and nature of women’s pleasure.
The first researcher is trying to discover which visual stimuli work for them, a sensorial basis for their pleasure from the existing knowledge of men’s own pleasure mechanisms. The second, basically, says that women can only experience truly pleasure within a certain emotional environment, being safety the main aspect. The last one guarantees that a woman can only enjoy sex if she feels desired.
Well, the first thing I thought about the three approaches is: no doubt men’s pleasure responds to sensorial-physical stimuli, they have emotions and those emotions play a great role in the way they feel more or less pleasure, and finally, feeling desired has to be important for them too. So then, is there a difference at all?
Besides finding any attempt of explaining the mechanisms of pleasure both fascinating and a bit utopist, I cannot escape from wondering all the interest in labeling women’s pleasure as physical, emotional or psychological. Can’t it be, for instance, the sum of the three?
Isn’t the complexity of a mechanism so hard to describe the reason turning it so interesting? Trying to disassemble it doesn’t make it more appealing and I seriously doubt that it can help a lot the way it is being done. Maybe sexologists want women functioning smoothly like vacuum cleaners or electric kettles, when they deal with so many equations that I don’t see how they can come up with a single truth about women’s secret and mysterious ways to pleasure.
I hate a few misconceptions about pleasure, like the idea that men are physical and women emotional. When I try to explain it myself, I always reach the same conclusion: simple or complex, transparent or profound, pleasure is always better experienced than described. Words, notions and intentions seem to be too awkward to say how it really is.