Well, I can't really see how that'd make sense. Their area of expertise is their fingers, which aren't really all that involved in coital sex.As for experience? I'm not much of a pianist, but I can tell you for sure that "passion" doesn't mean anything. Sex is entirely based on the release of endorphins and a few other chemicals from the hypothalamus; the emotional connotations are manufactured illusions. If you damage the emotion parts of the mind, sex is unaffected. But if you were to apply something along the lines of a bilateral lesion upon the medial preoptic nucleus of the medial area of the anterior region of the hypothalmus or damaged the arcuate nucleus of the medial area of the tuberal region of the hypothalamus, you'd completely eliminate any sexual potency. Although, you probably would not want damage to the arcuate nucleus, because that causes damage to dopamine production, which would lead to chronic depression.In short, the answer is "not really". There just isn't a real correlation between the level of pleasure in mating and a pianist's skill. It is pretty much moot point, though, as sex is completely useless outside of procreation anyway, and I'm dead sure playing piano doesn't make your potency in that department rise. If it did, fertility specialists would be replaced by piano teachers.
Surely that's subjective? It's well known that women are turned on as much by mental issues as physical ones. Even men have a balance between both aspects. If an attractive woman played like Horowitz it would be a big turn on. Even if a moderately attractive woman played that way, it might swing it. If she was ugly then it's tough luck for her though, sorry. Anyway, there are women who can orgasm from purely mental stimulation. I used to go out with one. That doesn't mean the whole of the ordinary world will be turned on by pianists, but there are doubtless women out there who would go for something so specific and who could very well be easier to please, if you're a good pianist.
Well, I can't really see how that'd make sense. Their area of expertise is their fingers, which aren't really all that involved in coital sex.
I always wondered this, because typically pianists are more sensitive/passionate. Does anyone care to reply, from experience?
Last I checked, biology isn't subjective. Unlike many in society wish, we can't just use willpower to mold our brains into whatever we wish. What you're describing as "turn ons" are simply where people use positive association as a way to consciously choose to activate endorphin rushes. It's not exactly a hard thing to do, either.Biologically, people need enormous incentive and analgesia to be goaded into mating. The process of mating is, in fact, extraordinarily painful without endorphins. If people couldn't feel endorphin rushes, I can pretty much guarantee you that they wouldn't have sex. Whatever reward and dosage of chemicals is required to get people to copulate, the brain will gladly supply so our species doesn't die.Sure, piano can be a turn on. But pretty much anything can be a turn on. Stating that the mere fact this can be a turn on necessitates it being indicative of enhanced sexual prowess, however, is going a tad far.
Actually it's not about women necessarily needing more or different kind of mental stimulation than men, because not all of them do and individual sexuality is formed by nurture as well, not just nature. Many women simply have the ability to physically stimulate themselves internally. Female organs are situated so, that it is possible to induce orgasm without outer stimulation with almost unnoticeable internal muscle movements. Obviously men are different in this aspect.If men don't need mental stimulation as well to be turned on, why do we have the porn industry?
None of that makes any sense. Choosing? Who chooses to be attracted to someone? It's like the idea that being gay is a choice. Often the most resistant women end up being extraordinarily turned on by someone they told to *** off earlier in the conversation. That's not choice. I suppose you can say there's a choice about whether to fight attraction but the attraction itself is not a choice. Whether to act on it is the choice. It's well known that the female orgasm is most easily triggered when mental issues, particularly attraction issues, are right- rather than merely by the correct form of physical stimulation. You seem to be implying that it's all down to physical issues? In the right conditions, a male can do a relatively ordinary job yet get better results due to mental stimulation. If a woman happens to be extremely attracted to a man for his piano playing, he doesn't need to put in anywhere near as good a performance as someone she's less attracted to, to make a better impression. Women are also much more susceptible to external issues to looks than men, which is how the small bald man Neil Strauss came be a successful "gamer".
Well, for one, I am a person who chooses that. Because, if there is one area where animals have humans definitively beat, it is correctly choosing mates for optimal progeny. Unfortunately, I have loads of stuff that shouldn't be passed on through the gene pool, so I'll just have to settle for someone who I'd logically want to spend my time with. However, it is nice to see that I'm not the only human being on this planet who realizes acting on attraction is a choice.As I stated earlier, mental stimulation still works along the same pathways as any other MO that one may choose for attraction. Arguing aesthetics is rather pointless as well, as the intended reason for that has essentially been bred out of the common population due to the imprudent notion that "true love conquers all", or whatever swill by dime store romance novel writers of past ages of antiquity that people choose to hold dear. Everything is chemical by nature, people are just blind fools in the face of it.
But I'm not talking about self induced orgasms. I heard some story about a French philosopher whose party trick was to lie back on a table and orgasm without touching himself. The woman in question orgasmed ludicrously easily when in the right mood. When she wasn't, she couldn't orgasm at all. Whatever the corresponding physical process might be, the difference came from mental issues.
That would be quite logical, since it's impossible to completely separate the mental process and the physical process, whether male or female. It is quite common for men to not be able to perform due to mental issues as well. I still find some of the things you wrote more consistent with myths and stereotypes about female sexuality than facts.What you have been observing are differences in sexual behavior of individuals. It's much more difficult to actually study biological differences between men and women, since no-one developes their sexuality in a vacuum. It is only possible to study the end result, which is a complicated product of nature and nurture. The observation that women tend to behave differently cannot be satisfactorily explained by some persistent biological difference. Differences between individuals are high in both sexes. Hormone levels do not alone explain the variation in libido. It may seem like women have a lower libido by nature and they therefore need something that men don't to be able to increase it. But it is just as possible that they simply are mentally more prone and more able to control their sex drive, both consiously and unconsciously. When boys come to puberty their major concern is how and where to get it. Girls on the other hand are from the beginning aware of both the risk of getting pregnant and the cultural norms imposed on them. They begin early on to develope mental models that inhibit the natural process of sexual behavior. These models will not just disappear later when the situation is more favorable to sexual behavior. But that does not mean that the models are universal or that all women are effected by them in the same way. There are women who find it just as hard as many men do to control their sex drive and don't need anything special to turn them on. There are also men who are very difficult to turn on.And to the original question I would say that pianists are likely to have less sex, unless they have found a way to do it while practicing...
Sorry, but you don't "choose" anything regarding attraction. You choose whether to act on it and that's it. Attraction just exists or doesn't. That said, it usually becomes all the more powerful when people try to choose not to find someone attractive. Women who "choose" who to be attracted to via rational contemplation rather than through genuine attraction are typically the ones who get comprehensively bored of their husbands within months and then either lead a boring and unfulfilled marriage that often ends in divorce or consists of plenty of infidelity (when the woman realises that attraction is not a choice after all and wants something more interesting). The Woody Allen film Vicky Christina Barcelona is an extremely astute exploration of this type of common scenario. I actually got a message from a woman on a dating website once, detailing exactly that type of thing. Pretty baffling that someone would set about cheating on her husband for the first time through a dating website, but people are certainly odd. I'm not saying it's as simple as choosing a partner based purely on raw impulsive emotions, but it'd simply objectively inaccurate to refer to any level of "choice " behind attraction. Acting on it or not is the only choice. You might as well argue that someone in a relationship can choose never to find anyone else attractive. They can't. They can choose not to act on attractions to anyone else. Some are so hardwired to devoting themself to one person that they may genuinely experience little attraction. But you can't "choose" to be that way. For most, attraction to others continues and the only thing available via free will is the choice not to act on it.
Your first paragraph had promise, but you ruined it by making a Woody Allen movie the foundation. It's much like buying a Bösendorfer Imperial, playing Chopin on it, and then lighting it on fire.And it's not objectively inaccurate to say there is choice behind attraction. If it was inaccurate, I'd be an aberration of nature. And, as I noted earlier, it's not a particularly difficult thing to do (provided you actually decide at some point to NOT let your hypothalamus rule you like a slave). Attraction based on emotion may be harder to restrain, but it's still possible. If you use logic to determine, on the other hand, it's very, very simple to control it, because you base your attraction based on what is the most logical and rational course of action with the information available.Everything in our minds is a matter of matter and energy, electrical signals and chemicals. All things, even things like attraction, have a basis in chemicals. Deny someone GnRH, damage one of the nuclei I mentioned earlier, or shift testosterone and estrogen, and even the most stalwart defender of your argument will experience a radical shift in sense of attraction. This, however, is assuming that that person is addicted to such chemicals and hasn't overcome such trivialities. The hypothalamus is the most primitive part of the brain. It is easy to overcome and force into submission. Once you have that controlled, you will find you can be attracted to whomever you please at any given time.
That sounds scary, it means I could (God forbid) fall in love with a bimbo
Only if you want to. The question is, do you?
Umm, I'm afraid that if you select someone to be attracted on a rational basis and then decide to order your brain to become attracted to them, you're definitely out of the ordinary. Good luck with it. It's certainly not outright impossible that attraction could evolve in such circumstances, as it's something that can grow. But I sure as hell wouldn't bank on it. If this is your idea of being normal, then small wonder that you don't respond to woody allen's extremely good depictions of human nature. It wasnt a "foundation" but a passing reference to an excellent fictional depiction of what happens in the real world. That said, I can imagine that he'd find an interesting film out of the idea of a male who uses snippets of brain research to persuade himself that he can choose a female based on logic and then programme himself to find her attractive based on pure willpower. Sounds like an excellent plot for a quirky black comedy about self-delusion. Also, women don't tend to respond especially to being chosen on "logical" grounds. I wouldn't bank on any especially mind blowing sex from that starting position. Personally, I'll stick with women who I actually start by being attracted to and restrict any rationalisations to what comes after that starter requirement. The fact that extreme lust isn't necessarily the basis for a long relationship doesn't imply that you should pursue one with someone who you felt no attraction to until making a bizarre conscious decision.
Occam's Razor states that it is more likely that everyone has the ability and simply doesn't use it than it is for me to be some superhuman. And, I might note, you should avoid your Woody Allen argument here, as you're arguing objectivity whilst describing Woody Allen's works subjectively. I also find it interesting that your assumed I was male and straight (you're right on only one on them: I'm currently without attraction). It also is unwise to state in a backhanded way that I am delusional, as that would be ad hominem.It is true, women don't like being chosen on logical grounds. But, then again, I'm not exactly going to use that as an icebreaker, and it completely defeats the point of properly manufactured love. You also might want to keep in mind that, even if I was some aberration of humanity, black swan blindness does state that it is possible the same exists in the opposite gender, and that a relationship can be formed on logical choice.As for your rather crass comment on "mind-blowing sex", it's safe to say I should never expect that, as I not only am unaffected by opiates, but I'm getting a castration in not too long. So I wouldn't be able to receive or give "mind-blowing sex". Not that I was ever particularly interested in swapping genital fluids with someone in the first place.
No, I pointed out that the film REFLECTS something seen over and over in reality. People would be shocked if they realised how common infidelity is- especially after someone makes a decision based on the logic of what material gains they get through a wealthy partner, rather than marry out of love for the person themself. In citing Occams razor, you casually ignore that a loveless relationship can stay together for many reasons with no real attraction. It's not about leaping to unfounded and irrational conclusions. As soon as two people are together there are issues of convenience, dependence, obligation etc. Not to mention the fear of not finding anyone else. You won't disprove the reality of human nature via superficial logic that ignores inconvenient factors. Anyway, I won't pry, but do you realise that having no interest in sex actually excludes your situation from the topic under discussion? You're speaking of companionship and not a sexual relationship. Thus attraction is not the issue behind what you seek. No regular sexual relationship, however, will function without a starting point of attraction. I'm stunned that anyone would seriously feel this would be normal, when the world as a whole clearly doesn't work like that. I won't ask about why you're being castrated, but you do appreciate that this makes your case just a little unusual surely? We can hardly apply such out of the ordinary circumstances and make a construct that the whole of world works this as, or that your attitudes have any relevance to how to build a regular sexual relationship. A man can't just decide to to get a hard on for someone he finds physically repulsive because logic told him to be attracted.
I should stress by the way that I'm not trying to call you "abnormal" or judging in any respect. However, from an objective point of view, you are not coming from a typical position or even one that actually corresponds to what we were referring to. People with an active sex drive are simply not going to behave in the same way an as asexual person and neither will they be capable of easily settling for a relationship that is built upon "logic" if they feel unfulfilled by it.
Considering what I know of humanity, I'm surprised it isn't far, far more common. It is often said that people think with ten percent of their brains, and I'm quite convicted at least nine of that is with the hypothalamus. People seek what they seek when they seek it, and "attraction" is often just a mask for more taboo incentive.Occam's Razor is meant to elucidate the matter that your statement that my simple ability to control my attraction would necessitate me being extraordinary is logically improbable, not that I intended it to use the philosophy to circumvent a point. To address that point, I would state that, whilst human nature causes gravitation, it does not enforce coercion: you can lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink.As for the point of sex, I will state that my reasons for disinterest are logic based (sanitation, bad genes, impotency, et cetera). Your statement on sexual relationships requiring attraction is also incorrect (unless ED medication suddenly doesn't work anymore). Normal is also terribly subjective, as (for example), an atheist would see atheism as normal, and 95% of the world would disagree. People convince themselves that THEIR normal is THE normal, as you can observe from the mentally ill who see no wrong in worlds of vast inconsistency and delusion.If you must pry into my castration, it's being done to cure a disease I have. So, sorry for having a disease that I didn't ask for. It's not my fault, and I want a decent quality of life, so I need to sever these fairly useless balls of fluid from my body.As for your last point, you can't really use erection as a good point for attraction. All an erection happens to be is hypervasodilation of the capillaries within the penis. And, I cannot stress this point enough, penises are extremely stupid. They aren't sentient, and don't know what they are in, what gender of person they are interacting with, and they don't even know the gender of the person they are stuck to. They are fed hormones and blindly do remedial tasks associated with those hormones. As well, I can personally attest to it being an inaccurate indicator, as I can have an erection when I'm VERY turned off, and not have one when I'm VERY turned on (though it has been a while, I haven't really felt like being turned on for a while).And for your argument that the way it is for most is the correct way? That's argumentum ad populum. Truth isn't so because any given person believes it. Truth is whatever it happens to be based on the fact that it simply is true. Now, all I've been handed by you is emotionally charged subjectivity and not an ounce of science backing it up. All I've been talking about is logic and science. Either present proof or lose by the matter that you're relying heavily on opus probandii.
Wouldn't musicians in general be too busy to really focus on too much else?
Transcend?
lMFAObut anywayz, apparently artists e.g. poets n shet are more likely to have tortured souls and be super sensual/sensitive and have lots of passion. i think theres a study that shows that artists usually tend to have more sex... i'm pretty sure this would apply to pianists, as well, if the study were true
Just ask, what would Liszt do?
. What parts do you feel are stereotypes or myths?
It's no myth that women are statistically more reserved. It doesn't matter whether it's nature or nurture. It's just an identifiable fact regardless of the cause. I heard of an experiment where an attractive woman had to go up men and offer sex. And a physically attractive man had to go up to women and do the same. A fair percentage of men accepted. Not one of the women did, despite his traditional good looks. On a similar note, did you know that women don't generally change their standards of attraction when drunk? Men are more willing to sleep with a woman they'd not normally find attractive. They'll take someone just to get to have sex. However, women are merely more likely to go with the flow of attraction when drunk. They don't experience a notable change in what they find attractive, or drop their standards for attraction. They won't sleep with someone just because they're drunk unless a level of attraction actually would have existed while sober. There's an abundance of evidence that shows that women are turned on more by mental issues than men are and that it's mental issues that determine how likely they are to choose to have sex with someone.
Much of what you write below actually. What you write about the effects of alcohol seems just plain absurd. Women are often a bit more careful in their actions and don't traditionally get as drunk as men, but when they do they become quite unselective as well. Trust me on this one, where I come from both sexes show excessive drinking habits, so I've had plenty of opportunities to observe...and experiment There's also evidence that suggests otherwise. Majority of the research done on female sexuality was based on assumptions which seriously limit its validity. When stripped from these assumptions that were based on myths and stereotypes, there's very little actual evidence left. The kind of experiments you write about do not even study sexuality, just behavior in a certain situation that is dependant on many other factors than the subject's inner response to the offer. But this is not a topic that I want to start discussing more in depth on this forum, so you are welcome to believe as you do.It would be good for all you guys to remember that there's a difference between being reserved (as not being turned on easily) and being turned off because of the circumstances. It is unfortunately very common for that to happen due to lack of skill when it comes to other party. Many women are so used to it that they do not expect much, so seem to be reserved and not that focused on sex. Female sexuality is not complex and mystical, but it is often not expressed freely. There is an analogy to piano playing: A satisfactory performance requires a skillful touch and good rhythmic skills and those are unfortunately very often lacking. Both sensitivity and practice is needed. Keep working on it, it will pay off!I will do some piano practice instead
You didn't read what I actually said. Most of what you wrote agrees with me, even if you didn't realise it.
Women don't accept instant offers of sex from strangers often if ever.
I read everything you wrote, promise. There's also nothing wrong with my understanding of written English. You wrote what you wrote and I cannot agree based on what I know about this subject. I still don't after this post of yours. I'm not saying that what you write is not true in many cases in certain environments and to some extend, but it is only a very narrow view of a much more variant reality and it is also changing.Oh, but they do nowdays...Just go out and experiment yourself!Of course an average woman is more attractive than an average man (due to the fact that women try their best) so it's not that common for a really attractive man to offer sex...
I know that it's perfectly possible to talk women into it surprisingly quickly, but talk is the key word. It's the talking and preparation that it hinges on. The talking builds the mental attraction. Skip that and it doesn't work.
Did you know at around 10 percent of men are responsible for around 90 percent of the sex women have? Many of the most successful are not even physically attractive. They just know how to do the mental side better.
The moment I saw this, I thought, "what would Sorabji do?".
After all this stuff, let's try returning to the OP which, in case anyone's accidentally or wilfully forgotten, is the question "Do pianists have more/better sex?".The first question that this raises is "more/better" than whom? Everyone else? If the initial premise is indeed purportedly based upon the idea of some kind of physical "sensitivity" (as suggesed by the OP), why pianists and not violinists, cellists, bassoonists, saxophonist, organists, singers, conductors? I know that this is a piano form, of course, but this thread's been running for more than 50 posts yet no one appears yet to have thought to ask that question!Second question. I am reminded of Cole Porter's song Just One of Those Things and its opening words "As Dorothy Parker once said...", the origin of which was her response when told of the death of President Calvin Coolidge, "how could they tell?". I digress not; how could they - i.e. anyone - tell whether pianists of whatever sexual predilection/s have "more/better sex" than non-pianists? Has anyone conducted - or, for that matter, could anyone possibly conduct - a reliable and serious research poll on the subject with the aim of proving or disproving such a premise? One can no more tell whether pianists as a category of people have "more/better sex" than other musicians or non-musicians than one can determine the sex of a composer of a work simply by listening to it!
Why so? And to what conclusions, if any, did you come?Best,Alistair
I have my doubts about your statistics, but lets assume it is so.Because people tend to have sex more than once with the same partner, the amount of sex men get doesn't have to correlate with their looks or their courting skills, but their ability to satisfy their partner, which is a skill.
That is one of the myths. It may seem like that to the man, but I can assure that it is not often the case. Too much verbal courting will often have the opposite effect. Of course you also present a very narrow view of men, many men seem to get turned on by conversation. Dispite the popular belief they also don't seem to prefer women who act brainless...The problem is that it is so accepted for men to show their intentions about sex in social situations, that they don't realize what goes on in women's heads who are not as open about it. So it's easy to make false assumptions observing the behavior only. But this is also gradually changing.
. Think about how few men are actually reliably good at getting one night stands on a regular basis.
Topic: Do pianists have more/better sex? 