I am the child in the story of Emperor's New Clothes

Recently, I saw some news that 2011 Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Lead author Barry Komisaruk, professor of psychology at Rutgers University, imaged brain activity in several women who were able to masturbate to orgasm in the decidedly unsexy atmosphere of a functional MRI machine. The scientists claim that the only thing that a woman’s orgasm can be compared to, at a brain level, is the epileptic seizure. Not only did they claim this, but they have proven the similarity through a test which consisted in scanning the brain during the actual orgasm. In short, Professor Komisaruk believes he has solved mystery of female orgasm and claims that the female orgasm can be compared to the epileptic seizure.

I just felt very ridiculous, when I saw this news. I can’t help myself to ask one question to them “why don’t you use MRI to research male orgasm? I don’t know the feasibility of their testing methodology, but I know this conclusion the got have No Value at all. This is just a farce in my eyes like the reality version of the story of emperor’s new clothes. I just want to say all so-called experts are all deceived by fake female orgasm and that female status like epileptic seizure is not real female orgasm at all.

Why do a group of the world's top scientists believe such a lie? The key point is that women themselves are not clear what the real female orgasm is. They always think that urinary incontinence and some water (urine) gushed from the urethra is real female orgasm. This is a huge mistake. Women have been in pursuit of the so-called mysterious female orgasm for so many years, but until now female orgasm is still in dark. In fact, women and men have the same orgasm pattern and process, and female body also has a system that keeps it from being able to orgasm and urinate at the same time, and female also require time to switch back to urine mode after orgasm mode, and after every orgasm women also have refractory period. I think unless women themselves experience that feeling personally, otherwise they have very difficulty to believe what I said.

Poor woman is like the same poor emperor in the story of Emperor's New Clothes. They are asked to have orgasm, and asked to be normal. Such a request leads to one result―female totally confused, and they don’t know what the real female orgasm is and what exactly feeling they are supposed to feel. They mistakenly believe the feeling like urinary incontinence by men’s puncture or urine gushed from the urethra is female orgasm, because that feeling during sex puncture is indeed special and really different from other feeling in daily life. The key logic is here, X (a special feeling) is not A (common feeling), but it doesn’t mean X (a special feeling) is B (a real orgasm). I think no one would deny this logic. Woman is like the emperor in the story. The emperor is not sure whether he is wearing clothes or not, but when every body says “How beautifully they fit. What material! What colours! It is a gorgeous suit! ”, the emperor is confused too, and acts like he really has clothes on, and wishes no one can notice he could see nothing and he is not stupid and he is fit to be emperor. In fact, “but he has nothing on!” said a little child at last. Women are also afraid of other people think they are abnormal and not fit for women, before they really figure out what the orgasm is, they could not wait to announce “I can get female orgasm”, and they are indeed addicted to acting more and more like they really have orgasm.

I think it is not exaggerated to use the story of emperor's new clothes as metaphor to women female orgasm. All people have high expectation to female orgasm, and everyone wants to know how crazy and magical female orgasm. They focus all attention on hypocritical surface of so-called female orgasm, but all ignore the nature of the orgasm, like people ignore the nature role of clothes is keeping "warm". The only purpose of orgasm is to release your body and spirit, and is not concerned about how others look at your orgasm. Women seem must have orgasm, or your husband is not doing well. The main reason women can’t get orgasm is on their own self. Women generally too care about what others say and whether men think they have orgasm, but not orgasm itself. Women only care men’s behavior, and can’t focus all attention to the sex and themselves. I think concentration on self-body is the first thing if women want to learn orgasm.

I hope this farce at Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in Washington, D.C. can stop, please stop grandstanding. I will expose you as the child in the story of Emperor's New Clothes― “but he has nothing on!”.

I like a senior quote by Jane Rizzoli in Rizzoli & Isles TV show in S213.

 

“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”

Give this sentence to all women of the world, and we encourage each other along.

Physical satisfaction and emotional satisfaction

Some sexual experts say the difference between the two genders is that, men need sex for love and women need love for sex. This sentence indeed got the plight women are facing. Many sexual experts try to find the differences between men and women to give a reasonable explanation for sex attitudes. In Non-linear, Basson model clarifies that the goal of sexual activity for women is not necessarily orgasm but rather personal satisfaction, which can manifest as physical satisfaction (orgasm) and/ or emotional satisfaction (a feeling of intimacy and connection with a partner). She proposed two important concepts: physical satisfaction and emotional satisfaction, but she seriously underestimated the natural and important function of physical satisfaction (orgasm) for women, and exaggerated the function of emotional satisfaction for women, and tried to mislead the female physical satisfaction can be replaced by emotional satisfaction. Dr. Basson doesn’t realize that physical satisfaction (orgasm) is also irreplaceable for women as same as men.

Here, I emphasize the importance of physical satisfaction, but it doesn’t mean I think emotional satisfaction is unimportant. Both concepts are totally different from each other, and the only common thing about these two is that both are feelings for a person. Physical satisfaction purely satisfies one’s physical desires while emotional satisfaction is solely meant to satisfy one’s spiritual.

Physical satisfaction (orgasm) is a selfish act as it only pleases a person’s physical desire usually associated to man’s sexual demands. In fact, this is not only a man needs, but also a woman needs. The physical desire is an unavoidable natural force which usually related to sexual release. You can get physical satisfaction through touch someone or fantasy for someone in an obscene manner. The last purpose is only an orgasm to release your body, and it is like the function of food for human, and I think you don’t pick the food, when you are hungry and urgent to eat.

Emotional satisfaction (a feeling of intimacy and connection with a partner) is an unselfish act of giving affection to a person. It satisfies a person’s emotional and spiritual needs and commonly used to express an act of unselfishness and affection. I think you must want to have a connection with him/her, if you are in love with someone. There is normal emotional desire.

Physical satisfaction is simple and emotional satisfaction is complex; physical satisfaction is basic level and emotional satisfaction is high level. That is why men want some affairs with some women they even unknown, though the results they got are same. Human wants get emotional satisfaction after get physical satisfaction easily. It is also like you must want to have a little change for your food, if you have choice. I think so far the woman is not qualified to talk about emotional satisfaction. It doesn’t mean I ignore women's emotions, I just don’t want women confuse the both concepts. I just think the first job for women is figure out what the physical satisfaction, and then talk about emotional satisfaction, or you will live in the story of Emperor's New Clothes forever.

Love is love, sex is sex. You should love the soul, when you are in love with someone. You just need a hearty orgasm to release yourself, when you have a physical sexual desire.

Low sex drive in women can be explained by Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning and Skinner’s Operant Conditioning

Almost all husbands are complaining that their wives have the low sexual drive and never initiate sex with them, and of course they can’t get enough satisfactory from their wives. The low sex drive in women becomes the main excuse for men’s cheating, and all women are also stuck by this problem.

Many explanations have been given to this problem. Some experts say women were born with low sex drive, and some say women don’t deserve the high sex desire, because the value of women existence is reproduction, and some say woman's desire for sex is based on a complex interaction of many components affecting intimacy, including physical well-being, emotional well-being, experiences, beliefs, lifestyle and current relationship. A wide range of illnesses, physical changes, medications and hormone levels may change desire for sex. According to sex educator and researcher Beverly Whipple in her circular Model proposed in 1997, she demonstrated that pleasant and satisfying sexual experiences may have a reinforcing effect on a woman, leading to the seduction phase of the next sexual experience. If, during reflection, the sexual experience did not provide pleasure and satisfaction, the woman may not have a desire to repeat the experience. Hers view itself is not wrong, but unfortunately the main point is women not only never got real satisfaction, but also they have no idea what they really need. Whipple’ theory gives me some inspiration about how to describe human sex desire accurately.

Here, I propose a new view based on Pavlov’s classical conditioning and Skinner’s operant conditioning to give people a real reason for women’ low sex drive.

Key concepts of Pavlov’s classical conditioning

Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS): A stimulus that elicits a response without conditioning. In Pavlov’s typical research this UCS was food.

Unconditioned Response (UCR): Automatic response elicited by the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). In Pavlov’s typical research this UCR was salivation.

Conditioned Stimulus (CS): A neutral stimulus that when paired with an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) elicits a similar response. In Pavlov’s typical research this CS was bell.

Conditioned Response (CR): A response that is learned by pairing the originally neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). In Pavlov’s typical research this CR was dog would salivate at the bell.

All his researches were based on unconditioned stimulus can elicit unconditioned response. Chart 1 is the core of Pavlov’s theory.

Pavlov’s study is forward extension, depended on the chart 1. He tried to find whether something else like a neutral stimulus can elicit an unconditioned response except an unconditioned stimulus (ie 2). Before paired with an unconditioned stimulus, a conditioned stimulus can’t elicit an unconditioned response (ie 3).

 

Before learning

During learning

Higher order conditioning

Complex higher order conditioning

After learning

In classical conditioning, Pavlov modified or replaced the stimulus that leads to a given response by a different stimulus, and he described an involuntary or automatic response to a stimulus. But important thing is Pavlov didn’t do a test - what would happen, if the dog didn’t get the food after every time it already salivated. In other words, the classical conditioning theory ignored the research about “reward” after dog had UCR. This problem is the key to explain why women suffer Low sex drive. I guess here the UCR is not extinct, whatever dog get a reward or not, and it means dog still have salivation, even though can’t get food every time. The reason I will explain later.

Skinner’s study is backwards extension after a response (ie 8). In his “Skinner Box”, he found positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding. The consequence of receiving food if rats pressed the lever ensured that they would repeat the action again and again (ie 9). When a particular stimulus-response pattern is reinforced (rewarded), the individual is conditioned to respond. Reinforcement is the key element in Skinner’s operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is distinguished from classical conditioning in that operant conditioning deals with the modification of "voluntary behavior" or operant behavior.

In my own opinion, the combination of these two theories just can explain why women suffer low sex drive. Let me analyze the difference of sex drive between male and female one by one, and why men have higher sex drive than women. The main problem is in the women, not in men.

Male sexual cycle is a complete closed (ie 10). UCS is genital touch directly, and UCR is penis erection. Unconditioned response (erection) elicited by the unconditioned stimulus (genital touch directly). The only reward male can get is orgasm. Because man can get an orgasm as reward during a sex action like rat gets food after press the lever, they have high desire to repeat the action again and again. Positive reinforcement strengthens male sex action by providing a consequence man finds rewarding. That is the key why men have so high sex desire. After repeat this closed cycle again and again, some conditioned stimulus like porn or some neutral stimulus even not related to sex at all successfully paired with an unconditioned stimulus (genital touch directly) also can elicits a similar response(penis erection). That is why so many things can hook men up and men can think about sex every 15 seconds. That is a normal phenomenon. 

Why do women have low sex drive? Unfortunately, female sexual cycle is not closed (ie 11). In other words, women can’t get orgasm as reward is the key why women suffer low sex drive. After time and time again, punishment will weaken or eliminate female sex action by not providing a consequence as male’ orgasm. As time goes by, women think sex is a chore and have no interest in it. Because female sexual cycle is not closed, women never get a normal physical satisfaction at all, no more talking about some other neutral stimulus, of course the consequence is behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out or be extinguished.

Skinner’s theory said when using consequences to modify a response, the effectiveness of a consequence can be increased or decreased by various factors. These factors can apply to either reinforcing or punishing consequences. I think this view just can explain some different phenomena between men and women.

1 Satiation/Deprivation: The effectiveness of a consequence will be reduced if the individual's "appetite" for that source of stimulation has been satisfied. This point just can explain why men will lose interest in sex immediately, when after they get an orgasm, because men’s “appetite” for sex has already been satisfied like the dog is not going to eat anymore if already full, until it gets hungry again.

2 Immediacy: After a response, how immediately a consequence is then felt determines the effectiveness of the consequence. More immediate feedback will be more effective than less immediate feedback. This point just can explain why men don’t want be distracted after he already have an erection, because long time interval maybe will make the response failure. A proverb: strike while the iron is hot.

3 Contingency: If a consequence does not contingently (reliably, or consistently) follow the target response, its effectiveness upon the response is reduced. This point just can explain why men always are players and like the new and loathe the old, because the same sex with same people will reduce their desire for sex.

4 Size: This is a "cost-benefit" determinant of whether a consequence will be effective. If the size, or amount, of the consequence is large enough to be worth the effort, the consequence will be more effective upon the behavior. These opposing expected consequences (reinforcing and punishing) balance out will determine whether the behavior is performed or not. This point can explain why men always work hard in sex, not for the women, for themselves. Because the consequence of a sex (orgasm) is men’s core interests, of course they think it is large enough to be worth exhaustion. This point is also why women offer low sex drive, because they can’t find the core benefit (orgasm) during a sex, of course they don’t want to waste any time, any strength or any energy to do such a thing. The pursuit of orgasm is a subjective skeletal muscle activity and required to pay the cost, not like the passive salivary secretion

Use Thorndike’s law of effect to explain why such difference sex desire and drive between female and male, and why difficult woman have orgasm.

Responses that produce a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation.

Responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that situation.

Now I am going to answer previous question- I didn’t do any experiments on dog, but I think dog still have salivation until dead, even though can’t get any food. It is because unconditioned response (UCR) elicited by the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) is controlled by animals born nervous system, not by animals themselves. The animal's physiological instinct response must exist, until the nervous system is cut off. (Like sham feeding in Pavlov’s experiment, Pavlov cut off the dog’s fibers of the vagus nerve, and then secretion of gastric juice stopped). Women’s problem is similar to the dog’s. Women also have the UCR (like arousal, vaginal moistness and clitoris shaft erection), when they passively accept the genital stimulus directly, even though they can’t get the reward (orgasm). Women are unwilling to accept the stimulation subjectively, no more talking about the foundation between UCR and CR, because all their efforts for sex are futile.

I know Skinner’s theory had his own disadvantage, he did not consider the animal's emotional factors. If a man loves his wife so much, maybe he doesn’t have a sex with other woman who already hooks him up, but it doesn’t mean the man don’t want to, it just means he can’t. I think if we add too much emotional factors to the research on human’s basic activities, it will make the situation too complicated. In my opinion, this is unnecessary. Any complex situation is superimposed by a series of simple cases, but just the composite process is complex, mutual restraint and recycled. It may confuse people to know the nature of complex things.

Finally, I agree with one of Skinner’s views very much - The best way to understand behavior is to look at the causes of an action and its consequences.