Friends, Please take out time to read this recently published well-researched Journal Article which unearths many misconceptions around sexuality and blindness. Researchers on Sex among blind people may find this very handy..If you ask me, very interesting findings indeed. Note: Usual copyright rules apply. don't forward and share without proper citation and referencing http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11195-013-9313-9/fulltext.html Paul R. Abramson1 , Rick Boggs2 and E. Jolie Mason3 (1)Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA (2)Audio Eyes, Los Angeles, CA, USA (3)Los Angeles Radio Reading Service, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Paul R. Abramson Email: [email protected] online: 11 August 2013 Abstract:Is the gender disparity in sexual experience the same for men and women who are blind? Perhaps being impervious to visual cues would generate restrained sexual appetites in both genders. Our ethnographic findings suggest otherwise; the gender disparity persists even among men and women who are blind. The findings are discussed in terms of the cross-species research on multiple cues underlying mate selection, the combined utility of mate selection traits, and the physiological significance of sexual pleasure. Brief excerpts from our interviews are also included.KeywordsSex – Blind – Disability – Gender – Multiple cues – Sexual pleasure – Handy-dandy model – Sexual experience – United States Men are obsessed with visual sexual cues, women less so. This gender difference is believed to influence male preference for more sexual partners [9, 13, 36, 37].What about men and women who are blind? Is the gender disparity the same? If sexual motivation is primarily dependent upon visual cues, one might predict not. Perhaps being impervious to visual cues would generate restrained sexual appetites in both genders.Though a small sample of individuals who are blind is a reasonable protocol for neurological and cognitive experiments [18] (N = 19); [30] (N = 10); [31] (N = 12), research on human sexuality is another story. Puberty is critical to sex, necessitating sampling subjects who lost vision prior to, and subsequent to its inception. The onset of sexual relations matters too, since it is easier to visualize what one has experienced visually. Other permutations exist as well. Blindness itself is variable (e.g. age of onset, underlying pathology or trauma, light sensitive, etc.), and there are gender, sexual orientation, and generational sampling differences too. Women who are blind are more sheltered than men who are blind; homosexuality is more taboo than heterosexuality; and the young are more progressive than the old. Methodological hurdles surrounding disclosures about sex among those who are blind complicate this picture even further. In recognition of these obstacles (and more) we have begun herein with admittedly impressionistic ethnographic data [40].The sample was 25 subjects (15 men and 10 women), who ranged in age from 20 to 60. Ninety-seven percent of the sample was Caucasian, nearly half were single, and eighty-four percent were heterosexual. Subjects were obtained ethnographically through the social networks of the last two co-authors who are blind. The interviews were unstructured and tailored to each subject. (Excerpts are included below, in the next to last section of this paper). The focus of the interviews was three-fold: (1) general information about the repertoire of sexual experiences (e.g. number of partners, onset of sexual experience, etc.); (2) experience with dating and finding partners (e.g. context for meeting a partner, Internet dating, experiencing a spark, etc.); and (3) sexual experiences that are unique to adults who are blind (e.g. how do you flirt? are you sexually stigmatized? etc.)Preliminary ImpressionsOur interviews suggest that gender disparity in sexual motivation persists even among those who are blind. Though there was inter-individual variation in our sample, we nonetheless found that men who are blind were generally much more focused on sex than women who are blind. Regardless of sexual orientation, men who are blind masturbate more than women who are blind; they have more daydreams about sex than women who are blind; they have more sexual dreams than women who are blind; they experience an earlier onset of sexual expression than women who are blind; they are much more likely to scheme about sexual contact (e.g. when clinging arms) than women who are blind; they are much more likely to pursue anonymous sex than women who are blind (e.g. a casual encounters); they are much more likely to pursue sexual variety (e.g. mate swapping) than women who are blind; they are much more likely to dwell upon elaborate sexual fantasies (e.g. threesomes) than women who are blind; they have more lifetime sexual partners than women who are blind; they are much more likely to employ a prostitute for a first sexual encounter than women who are blind; and so on.The real question, then, is why? Why do gender differences persist among those who are blind? Four explanations come to mind; neither of which is mutually exclusive. The first is largely cultural. Women who are blind are perceived to be more sexually vulnerable (by parents, caretakers, employers, etc.) than men who are blind, and are thus guarded more scrupulously. This could easily translate into sexual inhibition and more selective mating by blind females as well. Secondly, perhaps the underlying male sexual evolutionary programming predominates regardless of the availability of visual cues. If so, compensatory cues would thereby emerge, much like navigational information obtained through touch. Similarly, as a third explanation, perhaps multiple cues are endemic to the underlying sexual evolutionary programming among humans in the first place, whereby a reordering occurs among men and women who are blind, thus preserving the gender disparity [17, 33, 39]. Lastly, perhaps a repurposing of the occipital cortex among adults who are blind activates the same kind of sexual programming—through auditory and tactile stimuli—that is normally elicited by visual stimuli among sighted adults [31].There is, of course, a good reason to predict gender disparity in sexual motivation in the first place—even among those who are blind. Gender roles involving sex, in most species, are defined by differences in gametes: females produce relatively few; males produce substantially more. This discrepancy underlies the Bateman principle [10]. Female reproduction is limited by access to resources necessary to the survival of large gametes, whereas male reproduction is circumscribed by access to females. Males thus compete among themselves to obtain females, whereas females are picky and mate only with preferred males [12, 38].The differences in gamates, and the correspondingly disparate gender reproductive strategies, are also presumed to explain male promiscuity. The comparatively abundant, smaller, and motile gamates, and the need to achieve paternity, fosters males to seek multiple mates. The data in fact indicate that there is a significant correlation between the number of mates and number of offspring in males, but not in females [14].There are, nevertheless, complications when this analogy is applied to humans. Sex is not a level playing field and humans are fully aware of this; women get pregnant, men don’t. Since our complex, thinking brain often determines many of the choices we make, it is perhaps not surprising that human sexual motivation is also independent of hormonally regulated cycles [22, 41]. Humans appear to have sex all the time: pre-pubertal, post-pubertal, non-procreative (e.g. oral sex), and so forth—and they do it for many reasons too, reproduction being only one of them [1, 4, 5, 7].To the extent that the gender disparity in reproductive strategies has been at least partly modified by natural selection, one would still predict gender differences in sexual experience even among those who are blind. The gender inequality of the costs of sex (i.e. pregnancy) would augment this prediction as well. Since women get pregnant, they are going to be a lot more cautious about sex than men.Comprehension of the risks of pregnancy alone, however, would not account for the similarities among sighted and blind humans; in most species, as noted previously, males are obsessed with sex [14]. On the other hand, if in fact multiple sensory cues (e.g. auditory, tactile, olfactory) are customarily prevalent in human sexual functioning, as they are in other species [11, 17, 23, 27, 28, 42], than commonality among those who are sighted and those who are blind is less surprising. Since humans do not exhibit exaggerated sexually dimorphic traits (e.g. elaborate tail feathers), perhaps visual cues are less critical than might be assumed. Also, since Fisherian arbitrary sexual traits do not appear to be operative in humans either (e.g. a preference for the color orange), perhaps there isn’t a visual sensory bias in sexual selection in the first place [21]. Although human females most certainly assess the suitability of human males using subtle cues that are relevant to reproductive success, this process should be active among women who are blind no less than sighted women—especially if humans rely upon multiple cues. Human sexuality is obviously more than meets the eye.The Handy Dandy ModelAbramson and Pinkerton introduced the idea, dubbed the Handy Dandy Model, that fitness is increased through the combined effect of multiple inherited characteristics [6]. It is generally assumed that characteristics with little apparent significance (e.g. the length of a mating call) may be genetically associated with other beneficial traits that improve overall fitness through genetic covariation. The Handy-Dandy Model suggests another possibility: collective traits may also have a combined utility as well. So long as the combined utility is great, the loss of one function may still permit the trait to persist in the face of natural selection pressure.The underlying metaphor for the model is the ubiquitous multi-function kitchen device that slices, dices, peels, opens cans, and so forth. The loss of one function (e.g. opening cans) does not necessarily diminish the overall value of the device.Perhaps human sexual attraction and mate selection operate as a collective trait combining multiple forms of perception that also have a combined utility as well. The loss of vision thereby does not eliminate the collective utility of sexual attraction or mate selection because other processes (sound, tactile, etc.) have species survival benefits too.Sexual PleasureWhich brings us to pleasure. The evolutionary function of sexual pleasure is to motivate humans to have sex. Pleasure is thus an adaptation that solves the problem of sexual motivation in humans—but interestingly, it is not specific to reproduction. Masturbation, mutual masturbation, pre-pubertal sexual play, oral sex, anal sex, intercourse with contraception, post-menopausal intercourse, and so forth are highly pleasurable acts that do not compromise species survival [2–5, 16, 19, 20].Do people who are blind experience less sexual pleasure than people who are sighted? The research suggests not [8, 25, 26, 29, 43]. The experience of sexual pleasure is an internal process precipitated by tactile stimulation, and not dependent upon visual cues [4, 5]. It is neither taught nor modeled by others, but instead, revealed through self-exploration. Once discovered, it is deeply embedded in memory, and thereafter elicited by a myriad of cues; internal (e.g. bodily sensations), external (e.g. sensory stimuli), and cognitive (e.g. thoughts). The pleasures of sex are thus endemic to the human condition; or to use Ray Charles’ words, sex is a bitch of a motivator; it don’t need no eyes [15].If those who are blind experience the same intensity of sexual pleasure as the sighted, one would expect similar sexual motivations. Our interviews suggest as much. Adults who are blind are very interested in sex, and place as much value on it as reported by sighted counterparts [24].There is, nevertheless, a significant difference. It is much more difficult for those who are blind to initiate sexual relations. Blindness circumscribes mobility; driving is impossible and navigation is much slower. While limited resources [with many restrictions (e.g. advanced reservations, selective destinations, etc.)] exist to transport adults who are blind to work and medical appointments, there is no infrastructure to facilitate the romantic needs of those who are blind. It takes more ingenuity and persistence for adults who are blind to initiate or sustain interpersonal sexual relations, especially for spontaneous ones.Those who are blind also report experiencing considerable sexual frustration. This too may be relevant to the evaluation of sexual cues. Receiver psychology is crucial to the processing of sexual signals in many species [17, 32]. The relationship between signalers and receivers is thus a dynamic one. Cues do not invariably elicit a uniform response, but instead, are often moderated by the receiver’s psychology [32]. Perhaps the widespread sexual frustration among adults who are blind has a comparable effect, raising their acuity to multiple sexual cues, and thereby reducing sexual errors in partner choices.The Illusive SparkLike their sighted counterparts, those who are blind also put a priority on experiencing a romantic spark in their search for a potential mate. Attractiveness alone is not sufficient, certainly where a long-term relationship is concerned. A spark must be there as well; experienced primarily as non-specific, involuntary psychological excitement.That spark, according to those who are blind in our sample, is usually assessed through the voice. Everything was perfect, for example, but as she kept talking I could feel the spark wasn’t there. Or similarly, he had so many things going for him, but there was something in his voice that just wasn’t right. This parallel between blind and sighted adults is interesting for two reasons. If a spark (or chemistry) is an internal neuropsychological experience, the commonality is not surprising. An internal experience is not dependent upon visual cues. On the other hand, the resemblance between blind and sighted adults is also revealing in another regard. Though the sighted place extraordinary emphasis on visual cues of attraction, there is nonetheless, certainly when selecting a long-term mate, something inexplicable in the selection process for both groups as well.The Personal Experiences: Brief Excerpts from Our InterviewsThere are many prejudices about those who are blind [34, 35]. Adults who are blind are deficient, inoperative, and immature. Or their world is constricted, hazardous, and incomplete. This characterization bears striking resemblance to how anthropologists originally conceptualized hunter-gathers. Primitive, constricted, and naïve were bantered about, with the underlying assumption that such peoples suffered gravely from the lack of modernization. Racial animus was even worse; a prejudice that was touted as endemic to a race, traces of which are still evident in the United States Constitution.In this sample, adults who are blind experience themselves very differently. They describe their world as being comprehensive, and as such, they adapt to it. It is thus the experiential foundation of their existence. They note that this is especially true of someone who has been blind since birth. Vision plays no part in that world; the congenitally blind perceive, understand and experience through other sensory modalities instead.Losing sight is another story; it is an extremely traumatic event. But if adjustment does occur, that person, this sample believes, also emerges in a different reality governed by different senses and experiences, whereby physical and emotional navigation is implemented through non-visual sensory experiences. The language of vision even takes on new meaning, as is evident in the following explanation: Blind people do not vary their language to omit words related to sight or vision. We do not use euphemisms like “experience” television, or “check out” a book, or “listen” to a movie. Blind folks have enough trouble being accepted as equal human beings without adding other barriers. I don’t think many blind people would give it a second thought to saying “I saw a movie yesterday” or “I was watching TV with my kids.” In fact, when my kids want to show me something they say, “look Dad,” and they place my hands on whatever it is.This issue is critical to those who are blind. Blind adults want to feel empowered and treated with dignity. Prejudice, often in the guise of compassion, makes this especially difficult, particularly where their romantic and sexual needs are concerned.Our sample indicated that dating, sex and romance are hot topics for people who are blind. Finding romantic partners at guide dog schools, conferences or other meetings—as well as at work or educational institutions—is a frequent topic of discussion. Even prostitution is a deeply considered issue. Wanting a dating app for the visually impaired was raised too. Internet sexual orientation groups are now evident (e.g. Blind LGBT Pride International) and pornography has emerged for people who are blind as well (e.g. pornfortheblind (audio clips of x-rated movies), Playboy in Braille, etc.) The following narratives depict the nuances: I went to live at a guide dog training facility for 30 days to receive my very first guide dog. Nine other blind individuals were also residential students in the program. There were five women and five men. We all had individual rooms and were forbidden from visiting other students. Those visitations occurred anyway.I have long said that the sound of a woman having sex is the most beautiful sound. Other blind guys agree with me.Most of the blind men I know were very curious about sex. It usually started between the ages of six and eleven. They explored other boy’s penises or engaged in sex with other boys, jerking each other off, or rubbing their penises in the other boy’s ass. This seems to be true for heterosexual and/or homosexual blind men.Well-recorded, well-performed descriptions of sex scenes can be arousing. Poorly written or poorly performed audio sex scenes from books are a drag.I love strip clubs. How else can blind men learn about what is out there? We cannot see photos, so going to a club and paying ladies to stand and share their bodies should be a more common thing for blind men to do.I once started a fling quite accidentally with a woman at a professional conference. I was sitting next to an attractive sounding woman. I didn’t know her from anywhere, but she had a cute little voice and a slight Southern accent. I heard her move her long hair and I liked the smell of her perfume. When I let my hand drift down I was totally surprised and pleasantly shocked when my fingers touched her skin. She was wearing some very high open shoes and had her foot propped up close and high enough that I accidentally touched her. I felt my heart jump, but I forced myself, in the face of terrible fear of humiliating myself, to just leave my fingers there as if I did not notice I was touching her. When there was no reaction, I very gradually allowed my fingers to gently explore her smooth skin. Eventually she leaned to my ear and whispered, “you are tickling me.” I quickly moved my hand and apologized. She said, “I like it.” I then returned to my exploration. After the presentation she persuaded me to take her to the beach where we hugged, kissed, groped, and the like. I learned all about her physical beauty by touch.Our sample also indicated that a romantic spark can emerge with pen pals, the exchange of ideas, shared aspirations, and so forth. Even arranged marriages, some noted, can grow into love; suggesting—to them—that love is not dependent upon initial visual impressions.Love and intimacy also frequented the dreams of our sample. Dreaming, for those who are blind, has a greater sense of reality. A person who is blind, they noted, does not open his/her eyes in the morning and see the world. There is no demarcation between the visual experience of dreaming and the visual experience of being awake. Dreams about love were thus more powerful, nightmares (unfortunately) too. In either case, they indicated that one cannot simply see (by waking up) that it was just a dream.When a sighted person dreams, the mind creates visual images. Our sample experienced something comparable. The mind, they indicated, created spontaneous avatars (or holograms), distinct images of people or things. Dreaming about a loved one, for example, was not merely an auditory experience, but it included a sonar map too. This is no different, they believe, for waking life for those who are blind either. The mind spontaneously creates maps, holograms, avatars, etc. to create a geometry of human space; suggesting, perhaps, that there is a sense of spatial cognition that is independent of sight.Members of our sample believe that the sighted engage in this process as well, drawing an analogy to a sighted person talking to a stranger on the phone. If the conversations increase in frequency and a relationship forms, a sighted person will spontaneously create an image to coincide with the voice. Voices can be provocative, even for the sighted.Smell was also a feature in the dreams of our sample. Perhaps it is a consequence of the heightened sensitivity to smell, or perhaps those that are blind are simply more aware of its presence in a dream. Both, obviously, may be true. Members of our sample also noted that the associative connections to smell can emerge in a dream. If they are particularly fond of someone who has a distinctive smell or perfume, that smell will be evident in a dream too. The opposite is true as well. If there is an olfactory association with danger, the presence of danger in a dream will elicit the smell.Sexual orientation also appeared in the dreams of our sample. Recognition of being gay or lesbian, for instance, coincided with dreaming about being gay or lesbian, even at a very early age (e.g. 8 years old). A gay male in our sample related the following story. Though he had a short-term marriage for the purpose of having children, and was sexually active with his wife, he still identified with being gay in his dreams. His dreams, he believed, were more consonant with his identity than his behavior.Our sample also indicated that they relied upon unique criteria when selecting a romantic partner. Personality, as evidenced in the voice, was usually their first source of attraction. The face was not where sexuality was transmitted or received. The face, instead, was perceived as an erogenous zone, a site for stimulating and intimate touching. Intimate touch, they noted, can be an electrifying experience because it also prompts the creation of an image. When, for instance, a sighted person feels pleasure when seeing something beautiful, a blind person can have a similar experience when seeing something through touch. It too is often accompanied by a spontaneous geometric image.One subject exploited this ability to generate images through other senses by creating a guessing game when he was in high school: When I was in a normal high school, it was popular for girls to ask the blind kid to guess what they looked like. I would simply ask them a few questions not pertaining to their appearance, in order to get a feel for how they might look. I would listen carefully to the way they spoke, were they confident, timid, is their mouth open or tight when they talked? What did their clothes sound like? Did their voice sound deep in their chest or was it mostly in their throat or mouth? Height is easy to tell by location of voice. Attitude helped me with the clothes, jewelry, fingernail polish, etc. A purse can be heard in many cases, and shoes are not hard to describe by their sound either. And If I shook a girl’s hand, then weight and bone type would be easy to tell too. Then I would take my best guess, describing hair, eyes, facial type, height, weight and attire. I was about 70 % accurate. The game was quite a hit.Our sample also indicated that adults who are blind can be misled by touch. If for instance, a blind person believes that he/she is in the middle of a couch, only to fall off its edge, the effect is frequently described as dizzying. Where intimate encounters are concerned, adults who are blind will therefore spend time touching—for the sheer joy of it—but also, to better hone the geometry of an image. Hugs serve the same purpose, intimate touch even more so. Our sample also indicated that male masturbatory fantasies are based upon data gathered through touch, and they see their partners this way too. These intimate images are also crafted through sound as well. Not simply the voice, but all the sounds bodies make when moving. Interestingly, members of our sample believe that the blind are superb lovers because they are not distracted by visual images. They express their sexuality largely through erotic touch, which they believe magnifies the erotic experience.Curiously, the heterosexual men in our sample also describe themselves as breast men or ass men, despite never having seen (in the traditional sense of this word) a breast or ass. They suggested that erotic preference may be hardwired; experience with breasts or asses simply reinforces the wiring. The underlying erotic power is thus awakened through experience, but it need not be visual.Our sample also suspected that other erotic preferences are hard wired too. Sexual orientation does not evolve from observing the same or different gender, but is, instead, reinforced by sexual attractions and experiences with that gender. Even sexual fantasies are not dependent upon visual cues.One man who is blind, for example, had an erotic fascination with another man making love to his wife. Though this man has never seen it—certainly in the visual sense—he has seen it through touch and sound, a description that is remarkably similar to a comment made by Ray Charles [15]: I love to watch what’s happening. I just don’t sit on the other side of the room. I’m right there. If two women are making love, I see everything they’re doing to each other. I touch. I feel. I listen. And oh man, I’ve seen some exciting stuff. (pp. 244–245).This man in our sample also discovered that his sighted father, whom he never met until he was a teenager, preferred this erotic fantasy too, i.e. another man making love to his wife. This discovery reinforced his belief that erotic preferences might be hardwired as well.Whether true or not, those who are blind are certainly more accepting of their erotic preferences than their sighted counterparts. There is, for example, much less stigma for same-gendered sex, using a prostitute, and so forth. Being blind makes it harder to implement erotic choices, perhaps making it easier to accept those that do occur.Closing CommentsThis project is a rudimentary introduction to the study of sex among blind adults. Though the underlying rationale is significant (i.e. those who are blind can uniquely illuminate the mental machinery of sex in the absence of visual cues) the scope of this project is highly circumscribed by the deficiencies of the sample and methodology. This study is, at best, a peek into the subject matter.Nevertheless, several interesting findings emerged, two in particular. Sex for adults who are blind appears strikingly similar to sex for sighted adults. Secondly, the gender difference in sexual expression seems to be consistent among those who are blind as well.This paper also introduces the premise that multiple sensory cues determine mate selection—even among humans. This hypothesis is consistent with the cross species literature. Combined with the physiological power of sexual pleasure, multiple sensory cues could easily account for the sexual similarities between blind and sighted adults.Most importantly of all, this project was designed to focus attention on sex among adults who are blind, and to raise some fundamental questions about sex in general. Opening those doors is progress in and of itself.AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to thank the UCLA Undergraduate Sex is Blind Research Team for helping to get this project off the ground. The members include Elaine Codd, Amelia Evert, Paymon Jalali, Veronika Meier, Tyler Rudin, and Diana Wang. The authors also wish to thank Don Symons, Bianca Acevedo, Andrew Christensen and Terri Conley for their comments on the manuscript.References1.Abramson, P.R.: Romance in the ivory tower: the rights and liberties of conscience. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007) 2.Abramson, P.R.: Sex appeal: six principles for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, New York (2010) 3.Abramson, P.R., Abramson, A.: Smells like teen spirit: the conundrum of kids, sex and the law. In: Coupet, S., Marrus, E. (eds.) Kids, sex and the law. NYU Press, New York (2013) 4.Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D.: With pleasure: thoughts on the nature of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, New York (1995) 5.Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D.: Sexual nature/sexual culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995) 6.Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D.: The handy-dandy kitchen device. Science 282, 1993 (1998) PubMedCrossRef 7.Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D., Huppin, M.: Sexual rights in America: the ninth amendment and the pursuit of happiness. NYU Press, New York (2003) 8.Arnow, B.A., Desmond, J.E., Banner, L.L., Glover, G.H., Solomon, A., Polan, M.L., Lue, T.F., Atlas, S.W.: Brain activation and sexual arousal in healthy, heterosexual males. Brain 125, 1014–1034 (2002) PubMedCrossRef 9.Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J.: The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press, New York (1992) 10.Bateman, A.J.: Inter-sexual selection in Drosophilia. Heredity 2, 349–368 (1948) PubMedCrossRef 11.Berdahl, A., Torney, C.J., Ioannou, C.C., Faria, J.J., Couzin, I.D.: Emergent sensing of complex environments by mobile animal groups. Science 339, 574–576 (2013) PubMedCrossRef 12.Brennan, P.: Sexual selection. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 3, 79–85 (2012) 13.Buss, D. (ed.): The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Wiley, New York (2005) 14.Byers, J., Dunn, S.: Bateman in nature: predation on offspring reduces the potential for sexual selection. Science 338, 802–804 (2012) PubMedCrossRef 15.Charles, R., Ritz, D.: Brother Ray: Ray Charles own story. Da Capo Press, New York (1978) 16.Conley, T.: Perceived proposer characteristics of gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 309–329 (2011) PubMedCrossRef 17.Candolin, U.: The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78, 575–595 (2003) PubMedCrossRef 18.Deutschlander, A., Stephan, A., Hufner, K., Wagner, J., Wiesmann, M., Strupp, M., Brandt, T., Janh, K.: Imagined locomotion in the blind: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 45, 122–128 (2009) PubMedCrossRef 19.de Waal, Frans: Peacemaking among primates. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1989) 20.de Waal, Frans: Our inner ape. Riverhead, New York (2005) 21.Fisher, R.A.: The general theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1930) 22.Hull, E.M., Du, J., Lorrain, D.S., Matuszewich, L.: Extracellular dopamine in the medial preoptic area: implications for sexual motivation and hormonal control of copulation. J. Neurosci. 15, 7465–7471 (1995) PubMed 23.Johnstone, R.A.: The evolution of animal signals. In: Krebs, J.R., Davies, N.B. (eds.) Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford (1997) 24.Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., Michaels, S.: The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994) 25.LeVay, S.: The sexual brain. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993) 26.LeVay, S.: Gay, straight, and the reason why: the science of sexual orientation. Oxford University Press, New York (2011) 27.Lindstrom, K., Lindstrom, J.: Male greenfinches with brighter ornaments have higher virus infection clearance rate. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 44–51 (2000) CrossRef 28.Moller, A.P., Pomankowski, A.: Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32, 167–176 (1993) 29.Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L.: Psychoneuroendocrinology and sexual pleasure. In: Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D. (eds.) Sexual nature/sexual culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995) 30.Reardon, S.: Playing by ear. Science 333, 1816–1818 (2011) PubMedCrossRef 31.Renier, L., Anurova, I., De Volder, A.G., Carlson, S., VanMeter, J., Rauschecker, J.P.: Preserved functional specialization for spatial processing in the middle occipital gyrus of the early blind. Neuron 68, 138–148 (2010) PubMedCrossRef 32.Rowe, C.: Receiver psychology and the evolution of multi-component signals. Anim. Behav. 58, 921–931 (1999) PubMedCrossRef 33.Scheuber, H., Jacot, A., Brinkhof, M.W.G.: Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2453–2457 (2004) CrossRef 34.Shakespeare, T.: Disabled sexuality: toward rights and recognition. Sex. Disabil. 18, 159–166 (2000) CrossRef 35.Shakespeare, T., Gillespie-Sells, K., Davis, D.: The sexual politics of disability. Cassell, London (1996) 36.Symons, D.: The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, New York (1979) 37.Symons, D.: Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: the evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In: Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D. (eds.) Sexual nature/sexual culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995) 38.Trivers, R.: The folly of fools. Basic, New York (2011) 39.Uetz, G.W., Roberts, J.A.: Multisensory cues and multimodel communication in spiders: insights from video/audio playback studies. Brain Behav. Evol. 59, 222–230 (2002) PubMedCrossRef 40.Van Maanen, J.: Tales of the field. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1988) 41.Wallen, K.: The evolution of female sexual desire. In: Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D. (eds.) Sexual nature/sexual culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995) 42.Wedekind, C.: Detailed information about parasites revealed by sexual ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 247, 169–174 (1992) CrossRef 43.Wilson, J.: Sex hormones and sexual behavior. In: Abramson, P.R., Pinkerton, S.D. (eds.) Sexual nature/sexual culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995) -- Avinash Shahi M.Phil Research Scholar Centre for The Study of Law and Governance Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi India Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
