Visual Men and Touchy Feely Women

Blogger Greg Hahn from, "That's It On a Cracker," (http://onacracker.wordpress.com/author/greghahn4/) wrote the following comment as a response to my article, "Female Obedience and Sexual Abuse":

I've heard it explained that men respond to visual stimuli while women respond to touch. So women protect men by covering up, and men protect women by being very careful how they touch them- if at all.

I thought it was an interesting concept, so I decided to dig around a little to see if there was any support for such a concept.
 
I did find some. Medscape has an article on the subject and this is what they had to say:

In other words, men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli, but women are more sexually aroused by concrete, auditory, olfactory, touch and emotionally relevant sexual stimulation.

 (Read the whole article at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430_2)
But I found also this view on the subject:

Now I don’t know how other people interpret the idea that women aren’t visual, but interpreting it in that way is certainly not true. And not only can we replay scenes we’ve watched or pull up pictures we’ve seen (both erotic and otherwise), we’ve also got a fantastic imagination. Just because I’ve never seen it, doesn’t mean I can’t watch it happen in my head.

(Read the whole article at, http://simplysexuality.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/myth-debunked-men-are-more-visual-than-women/)

Regardless of which way one leans, the belief that men are more visual, and women are more touch oriented, has consequences that are felt beyond the safety of the bedroom.

If a touch is enough to arouse a woman, rape wouldn't exist.
The assumption behind "men are visual and woman are touch oriented" is that a man would never attempt to touch a woman who is covered from head to toe, because such a woman would never arouse him. Hence, a lightly clad woman can only blame herself is she causes a man to become aroused, wherefore rape is always a woman's fault.

But it gets worse. If seeing a lightly clad woman is enough to arouse a man until he loses all control, and if being touched is enough for a woman to be aroused, a woman should lose all control when touched by a man. In other words, rape doesn't exist.

I know you want it.

Just relax. 

Words from men to their victims; a mentality learned not from science but from pornography, where women (even the most reluctant ones) lose all control when touched. But that's not what happens to women in the real world. In our very real world, a man can touch a woman and get either a negative or positive response. A man who receives a negative response has a choice: he can either leave the woman alone, or use violence, wherefore rape is very much a reality.
 
Without question the greatest flaw with the concept of visual men and touchy feely women is that although pornography portrays women as coy and secretly willing, science points to mood and romance as important factors alongside touch for women; touch isn't enough. But why spend all that time creating the perfect mood, if you can just get your dessert without cooking dinner?  

Human sexuality is a complex subject and cannot be reduced to simple slogans - especially ones that excuse the abusers, and shame the victims. It is regrettable that Christians so often traffic in stereotypes, and end up telling the victims they are at fault. Science isn't that scary.