Their lovers male or female may indeed have a sense of their paramours 'turn-ons', but you will likely have a very difficult time eliciting this information. Most will likely view it as an intrusion into their privileged relationship with the other, and be averse to a 'kiss and tell' situation.

Good luck.

Thanks Douglas for commenting! I never understand why anyone thinks this information is so private. It doesn't seem to be private for men. Men are happy to comment on the stimuli that arouse them - opportunities for intercourse and almost any part of a lover's body but particularly genitals & sexual attributes. If female arousal was common, then we would also hear women talking about what arouses them. Men would know what arouses a woman because he would observe her responding to erotic situations in such a way that she subsequently readily reaches orgasm. Female sexual arousal is a secret because it does not occur with a lover. It is simply assumed. I am challenging all the many assumptions that are made about women's sexuality for which there is no evidence nor support from research findings. I am trying to bring some science (rather than fantasy) to sexology.

Women do talk about what arouses them. When an experienced women has sex with an inexperienced young man she may offer verbal guidance as to what he should do to stimulate her and communicate whether what he is doing is having the desired effect. "Oh god" isn't always an invocation of the deity.

when rodo reads JET's language as being apodictic statements, it makes me laugh out loud. Now, It is important for (my) attempts at comparative history to create space for description, so maybe some short giggling is allowed (gay science).

If you could please clarify what you mean, and also guide me to relevant parts of your work.

(1) What kind are your statements here in these boxes meant to be? Everyday language utterances, or do they contain technical language (of which research field?) that rodo should better learn first? Or are they rhetorical devices?

(2) Why is the phrase "too modest to explain" used in the question? Modesty implies at least some capability (which you are ready to adduce to JET generalised men called 'men') to overcome that hindrance (but by what means or what kind of teaching?).

(3) JET writes: "Men would know what arouses a woman because he would observe her responding to erotic situations in such a way that she subsequently readily reaches orgasm."

Why is this program developed (for performances* of non-same-sex partners)? Why is 'orgasm' the (one and only mentioned) target?

(*Yes, rodo thinks that sexual encounters are performances, like small children playing baking birthday cakes with sand. A performance may include learning (birthday concept, baking concept, how-to-do manuals), and may have always some feigning aspects (too much sand that cannot be eaten, sweetness is a hallucination).)

(4) JET: "Female sexual arousal is a secret because it does not occur with a lover. It is simply assumed."

The JET generalised women are called 'women', acc. to JET they do not have even arousal states (say as described by Masters & Johnson or any other observation, say as Roy Levin often summarizes them, or JET's preferred one, which is?), no orgasm (in any definition of the last hundred years), let alone fun with a partner, and they are 'too modest' to have fantasies, and should better rely on 'some science'. Did rodo understand that correctly?

(5) rodo's mind needs some examples to cling to. What are JET's recognized 'turn-ons' found so far by 'some science' both for JET generalised men (which dark continent interests me more), and maybe even for JET generalised women.

Kind regards, rodo

If you are not interested in the topic, you don't need to respond. The topic is for those who are interested and have something constructive to say? I am looking for positive engagement, not people intent on being negative.