Why is so much allure placed on the female form?
I am a heterosexual male and find the female form to be amazing. When I was in college, one of my professors said that everything in media was through the male gaze. I definetely see this in movies and TV. A woman in a bikini always elicits a strong response from men and even non-gay women as well. The female body is objectified and obsessed over. Most people who watch porn are men and most nude photos of celebrities we want are women celebrities. Why is this so? Who decided the female form was more alluring than the male? I know men were dominant in ancient times but I never got the reason why female bodies are considered more coveted.
Comments (124)
My guess would be something to do with evolution. Females are responsible for birth, in a manner of speaking, and are therefore inherently more valuable. The typical hourglass shape coveted by men is a sign of good reproductive health; wider hips allow childbirth to be easier, for example.
:monkey: :heart: :halo: :point: :broken:
:lol:
Men are straight lines and angles. Women are arcs and curvature. I suppose a lot of male and female attractiveness has to do with geometry. Straight lines and angles are easily "measured" (a scale and a protactor is all we need). Women, if they play their yin card well, are a different story, "measurable" only with indirect methods and that too only approximately. A lot of male casualties have been reported while trying to negotiate the curves of the female form.
Quoting TheMadFool
I must be a revenant several times over. :broken:
Welcome to the ?!
It is because females can bear children and males cannot. Mothers know who their children are but children may not know who their fathers are. Patriarchy is a way to redress the biological inequality. The male gaze is at least 85% envy.
I think there is a combination of factors.
If we judge bodies in terms of harmonious features, then male and female are probably equally “beautiful”. Animals, plants, and other aspects of the natural world can be equally “beautiful” in this sense.
The reason why we prefer the physical appearance of one type of body over another may have to do with evolution, reproduction, or upbringing.
For example, newborns are breast-fed by their mothers and children spend more time with their mother than with their father. The result is that feminine features are impressed on our mind as “desirable” and this can be projected into males who may be considered “more attractive” for example, when they have “feminine” facial features.
The female form may also be “more attractive” because it resembles youth more than the male (softer facial features, less body hair, etc.) thereby indirectly reminding us of our childhood.
Thus the female form ends up being more "coveted" by both sexes than the male. In evolutionary and reproductive terms, the female body which is associated with child birth is given priority over the male, etc.
Quoting 180 Proof
Gay male here - in general adult males look like apes and adult females look pretty decent and some are quite stunning.
Not relevant anymore.
Hormonal contraceptives (widely used) change the distribution of fat on a woman's body, so she doesn't have a(s much of a) hourglass shape anymore, but looks more like a man, with the torso going in parallel lines from shoulders to hips. You can look at the latest research as to what shape of a woman's body is most appealing currently. It's not the hourglass anymore.
More and more births in the developed word nowadays are by C-section (by some estimates, about a half), not vaginally. The wide-hips argument is becoming obsolete.
It's more that it is culturally acceptable for men to talk openly -- and crudely -- about their view of the female body, but not so much for women to talk about their view of the male body.
Clearly, you don't have enough female friends/don't spend enough time with them.
Other than that, by default, people are obsessed with their own bodies, they see their own bodies as objects of sensuality/sexuality. Because of this, they see the bodies of others also as objects of sensuality/sexuality. If one doesn't see one's own body as an object of sensuality/sexuality, one will not see others as objects of sensuality/sexuality.
For more, I'll just quote the Buddha on this:
[i]A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.[/i]
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.048.than.html
He then goes on to explain how femininity/masculinity are transcended.
Completely missing the point and drawing an incorrect conclusion... This seems to be your MO. I stopped reading at this point.
*sigh*
I'm saying that the gender differentiation in sensuality biased toward the female form isn't nearly as pronounced as you claim it is.
*sigh*
Because hairy hanging gonads aren't attractive to anyone. Let me summon a lady to confirm. @ArguingWAristotleTiff -- please weigh in here if you would.
I made no claim; I expressed an interest in someone else's point of view. You weren't particularly on my radar before but I find you replying to all of my posts with the most ill-thought-out and random nonsense all of a sudden, like the internet's most confused stalker. Something going on?
Where there's smoke/chemistry there's not necessarily fire. Women are soft. Women go out of their way to look welcoming and pretty and a nice butt is a nice butt. It ultimately come down to what turns you on and what you fantasize about and no matter how soft, pretty, or sensual something is if it's not doing it for you then it's not happening. The difference is I'd imagine a straight guy would see a nice butt on a woman and be aroused or fantasize but I'd be thinking along the lines of "man, if I had a butt like that..." or I'll just admire the shape since it's toned and bubbly and wonder how she got it....biking? squats? It does zero for me downstairs.
That said, it's not like we have a control study somewhere in which a generation of gay men grew up without the heterosexual male gaze dominating media every day. Do you think that plays any role? I'm also in 100% agreement with:
Quoting Hanover
Quoting baker
Genuinely, I don't know, and, while one part of me wishes you didn't, another has a morbid curiosity.
I think there's a misunderstanding. By "apes" I wasn't talking about anything relating to body hair. I was referencing 180's initial statement and by "apes" I meant more along the lines of something you'd be a bit cautious about approaching and certainly not something you'd immediately have sexual thoughts about. I honestly want to keep my distance from the majority of men that I see in public - a lot of men can be kind of intimidating or have bad personal hygiene. Men usually don't go out of their way to be warm or inviting or dress pretty like women do. If I know a guy it's fine but with male strangers I tend to keep my distance and I'm certainly not fantasizing or eyeing them.
The drive to impregnate is on average stronger than the drive to be impregnated.
Therefore the image of the fairer sex (woman) is more of a fetish for men.
But if all males were gay... well... the world would be :flower: marvelous :starstruck: . This is the way to utopia.
Nor was I. My example was:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
which was more about self-image generally.
Quoting K Turner
Yeah, I got this from your last post, but I'm intrigued -- and there's no reason you'd necessarily be able to answer this -- why care about that? It sounds like you're far more interested in how women dress than I am, which isn't unusual in my experience. Sorry for the third degree, I'm just interested, ignore it if you want.
I don't think that can be right. The cost-of-egg+birthing v cost-of-sperm disparity is common across almost all mammals: the fetishization of the female form doesn't appear to be. In fact, in tournament species, the male's appearance is far more important, since all men really have to offer is good genes.
Our attitudes toward women seem to me characteristically cultural, and attempts at naturalistic explanations always have a whiff of rationalising the alleged necessity of the status quo.
Well you smashed my non-explanation to bits. Thank you. :strong:
I am a heterosexual female and I find human potential/value to be beautifully demonstrated by the female form as well as the male form. I’m more curious why there seems to be so much cultural resistance to admiring or objectifying the male form (I have a feeling it has something to do with men’s fragile egos, but I could be mistaken).
I think what captures our attention with the female form is an awareness of qualitative variability in the value of women which cannot be predicted. To objectify is to try and define identity, form or potential to a point where we can consolidate some semblance of predictability in our interactions. By excluding or denying a woman’s capacity for intentionality other than these culturally consolidated options (angel, whore, mother, crone), we attempt (in vain) to maintain an illusion of predictability.
According to the male gaze, a woman in a dress always intends for us to focus attention and effort on her potential identity as female (ie. not male). A woman in a bikini always intends for us to focus attention and effort on her potential form as female. A woman naked always intends for us to focus attention and effort on her potential accessibility as female. An ‘angel’ will passively accept or deflect our intentions, a ‘whore’ will confront us with her own intentionality as defined. A ‘mother’ affords a temporary suspension and a ‘crone’ a more permanent loss of her accessibility, both charged with preparing other females for the male gaze. It seems so simple. Any ambiguity/uncertainty allures and motivates us to interact, actualising a consolidated judgement one way or another. A woman’s value is then determined by her perceived potential to fulfill the role assigned to her by this male gaze.
But to say that the response to a woman in a bikini is ‘strong’ among women in the same way I think misrepresents the variability of intentions and potential we perceive as women. According to the female gaze, a woman wears a bikini for any number of reasons, including but certainly not limited to intending a male’s culturally consolidated response to her female form. A woman in a bikini can elicit from other women a variety of responses, from admiration or inspiration, to jealousy or disappointment, depending on how we might interpret their intentions and perceive their potential. So, too, with the female gaze upon men. There’s much more variability here, and the assumption that all women objectify or judge other women (or men) just as men do is imposing this cultural consolidation of predictable intentionality on women.
Out of curiosity: how would you respond to a man whose intentions and/or potential is unpredictable?
Quoting TheMadFool
Personally I don’t see men as straight lines and angles at all, and I think that’s a rather limiting perspective that excludes more men than it describes. Plus, I find that men have the potential for some pretty impressive and even enjoyable arcs and curvature!
But enough about women's beach volleyball! Or is that, butt enough?
I like the way you think. I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately society puts a lot of pressure on how women look.
I don't think you are mistaken at all. I don't know about "objectifying", I don't believe it is happening to the extent that is being alleged, in any case. But I fully agree that it has something to do with fragile male egos. If something is aesthetically attractive then one should be able to say so, irrespective of whether it is the body of a woman, man, horse, dog, cat or anything.
Unfortunately, men feel that they must be careful not to be suspected of feeling any sort of attraction toward other men, and in general, men tend to be less open about feelings - depending on the particular culture we are dealing with.
Jealousy of another man's good looks, for example tends to be simply ignored or suppressed.
In contrast, women may have a different strategy. Instead of suppressing jealousy, they may transmute it into appreciation. So, instead of saying to themselves, "I am jealous", they might say to another woman something like "you look amazing today". That way they neutralize their feeling of jealousy.
The end result of this is that it becomes easier for female beauty to be openly acknowledged and appreciated than male beauty. So, it does seem to be very much a cultural thing.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I'm not hugely interested in how women dress, but how a woman dresses definitely does impact my impression of her. I would love to surround myself with confident, awesome women who have an amazing sense of fashion because something that like speaks to her creativity and artistic eye. I absolutely want that energy in my life. Beauty is a good in itself, and I'm not jealous of it (like straight women can be) or have any sexual interest in it (like straight men) which makes the relationship really quite pure. Obviously there needs to be more to it than how she dresses, but looks matter.
It fluctuates in time. No one decides. It's cultural and historical. But I also sense that the female body has always been more alluring to males by the "design" of evolution. I don't know how true that is, but it seems pretty obvious.
The less abstract response: women are just more beautiful.
As a happily married woman, I like to be able to openly appreciate and encourage the care and effort another man has taken with his body and appearance without everyone making assumptions about my intentions. Among married women, we can (sometimes) discuss this quite openly, but we’re more careful in mixed company - someone is bound to make assumptions.
If you’ve ever witnessed a male revue, the married women there enjoy the freedom to openly and even actively appreciate the male form without being labelled a ‘whore’ based on assumed intentions. How we perceive the abandon with which they embrace this rare opportunity says more about how society imposes assumptions about our intentions in interacting with men, especially once we’ve been ‘claimed as property’, than about a woman’s marriage or real intentions toward the male forms on display.
Correct. I think human behavior is largely dictated by pressure from society. For instance, if a man is with a group of male friends and an attractive female happens to pass by, there is a tendency for everyone in the group to follow her with their gaze and even make comments about her looks. It is like a ritual that everyone feels obliged to observe even though they may not even think of doing it if they were on their own.
Obviously, this may occur more among men of college or university age than in other age groups but it starts fairly early and it becomes ingrained. So, group mentality and behavior certainly take over and determine how we act. Those who fail to comply with group behavior are regarded as "odd." This can reach absurd proportions in certain cultures to the extent that as a man you are virtually expected to have a number of female partners, even if you are married, to sort of "prove" that you are a man!
So, groups can allow freedom of expression, but in certain circumstances they may actually do the reverse and act in repressive ways. In any case, society and culture has a lot to do with how we act and even think and feel. And for some reason the female body tends to be the center of attention as exemplified by the growing trend for female pop singers to perform on stage in their underwear whereas males tend to cover up. Apparently, this is supposed to be an expression of "female empowerment", though it is rather difficult to follow the logic of it ....
I think we need to stop blaming ‘society’ for this, and recognise that we construct and reconstruct society in how we relate to each other. We need to reflect on how we each respond to a woman’s appearance, and ask ourselves why we ignore the woman in the room who doesn’t engage us visually, but not the men. Why does she have less value in an interaction that has nothing to do with sex? What would happen if we threw a little attention her way? How would our intentions toward her be assumed - and is that really a fair assumption?
I think most men have reduced their social interactions to a shorthand of cultural assumptions, many of which are woefully inaccurate, but can be contrived for effect. It’s such a limited view of their potential, like a low resolution image. Reality isn’t constructed from pixels. Most men as well as women are far more complex, capable and interesting than ‘society’ gives them credit for. But they’d rather be misunderstood than admit that they misunderstand.
Personally, I think the difference between the ‘male’ and ‘female’ gaze is more to do with dimensional awareness than gender. demonstrates a perspective of value/potential that transcends this gender distinction, and renders the ‘male/female’ labels inaccurate. Rather than reducing potential/value to a measurement/judgement of intentions, his gaze recognises the variability of intention on both sides of an interaction. Intersubjectivity need not assume a dominant perspective, or a culturally determined ‘view from nowhere’. Even sexual interactions are more rewarding when the genuine intentions of all parties are understood and integrated, rather than assumed. It’s less certain, sure, but more accurate, practically speaking.
That’s because you don’t see her as an ‘angel’, let alone recognise that she may also be a ‘mother’. You also tend to block out the teams of male dancers around her that she bends to her will. You assume that her intention is to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it.
But she’s willing to let you imagine that, because in reality (and with the money you dish out to feed your little fantasy) she has enough resources at her disposal to put you in the ground if you so much as speak to her in a way that isn’t in line with what she wants. Most women put themselves at risk of physical harm if they appear before men in their underwear and then have the audacity to say ‘no’. Why do you think that is?
Interesting perspective. However, personally, I don't assume anything about pop singers for the simple reason that I tend not to attend concerts or otherwise watch videos of them. But I do happen to accidentally come across programs or video clips on YouTube or TV. The only thing that crosses my mind on such occasions is that the singers in question are putting on a show that looks totally unconvincing and unappealing and, frankly, a waste of time to watch. And anyway, it's probably just a money-making enterprise with a political or cultural agenda.
In addition, the female performers do not always appear to be be "in charge" or "empowered" at all. In many cases, they seem to suggest the role of street girls whilst male singers appear in fur-coats, expensive cars, and exaggerated jewelry.
It may sound old-fashioned but that's one of the reasons why I very much prefer classical or traditional folk music .... :smile:
Hmmm...No, I don’t suppose they would appear that way to you - although it would be nice if you could entertain the possibility that a woman can be semi-naked and still in charge of her own body...
You’d assume it’s the case that a semi-naked man (unrestrained) is still very much in charge of his own body, why not a woman?
In my opinion, the men flaunting their monetary value in videoclips are mainly addressing racial empowerment, which is another issue.
:vomit: What a crock. I don’t even know where to start with that. It barely addresses the OP at all, let alone reality.
:smile:
:rofl: :up:
Do you find that such women are generally creative in other ways, like writing fiction or playing saxophone? Because otherwise that's rather a bootstrapped explanation.
check out cindy sherman, her art work addresses "he gaze" critically, too many postmod essays out there to quote, but the work speaks for itself
Well, I never said that she cannot be. What I am saying is that those shows do not have that sort of effect on me. If as you say, male viewers’ assumption is supposed to be that a singer’s intention is “to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it,” then that is a total miss because it doesn’t work that way on me at all.
In fact, whenever I watch any of those video clips, which is literally for a few seconds as they pop up when I browse YouTube, the thoughts that come to my mind tend to be “this looks ridiculously fake,” “she/they are doing this for money,” “it’s in poor taste,” “unappealing,” “low-class,” etc.
I can imagine that some may find that sort of thing appealing or even “empowering,” but personally, I’m not into underwear and I find writhing and “twirking” on-stage in underwear simply off-putting, irrespective of the performers’ gender or political agenda. So, whatever the intention is (apart from making money out of a gullible audience), it’s got the opposite effect on me and they are wasting their time.
I think the whole concept of videos staged by clever record companies that manipulate, exploit, and fool the public for profit is wrong. I would rather watch something more traditional, more authentic, and more dignified, like Spanish flamenco, Irish or Greek dancing, or even ballet that at least has some artistic and cultural value.
Other than that, I tend to agree with @Wayfarer. Either someone is alluring or they are not. They don’t need to be in their underwear. :smile:
AND a beautiful good morning to you too dear Hanny~ :flower:
It's not even 7am here and I can tell you that it's not an attractive sight.
Guys think about the time when you were a kid and either Dad or Grandpa bent over to get the newspaper. :scream:
Well la-di-da, :razz: , but seriously, people are fooled into believing that they enjoy something that they actually don’t enjoy?
I think you’re missing the point, but I’ve probably contributed to that by my accusatory use of ‘you’, so I apologise. Only men who ARE attracted to these video clips (and I would say that most men are NOT) would see it this way - and it is supposed to be unconvincing as an allure to men. It forces intelligent men such as yourself to look away, recognising that she isn’t intending to be attractive, much less alluring, to you.
Because she’s not doing it for you or for any other men - she is expressing a potentiality that is denied to most women. So she’s doing it for women. We watch and admire the power she has to act this way without fear. We see that it is possible, and it empowers women and girls to argue against expectations that we behave and dress modestly so as not to inadvertently ‘invite’ men to attack us. That doesn’t mean I’m going to dance on the street in my underwear, but it’s important to recognise both that I CAN and that the fact that I’m afraid to is not because I’m a woman, but because there’s still a problem with how women are judged and valued.
Quoting Apollodorus
Agreed.
I think that people can be conditioned to enjoy certain things as opposed to others. After all, we are influenced by group think and by the dominant mentality and culture of the society we live in.
It's a complex topic. In some important respects, women are commercialized because men rule the world. There's also the fact that, on average, men are physically stronger than women.
I've read comments about women's libido being equally strong as many males. If some women say this then I can't argue with that. From my observations, I would've thought than men have quite a high sex drive and some are willing to pay money for sex. Then again, given my Latin American perspective, there may be a lot of distortion in terms of the way I view this topic.
As for the general question, it may be a cop out, but I think biology is quite strong. There's also something about the female form that has been considered a paradigm for beauty in many cultures all over the world. This probably has to do with some aspect of our innate nature.
So for us as a species, it might be a fact that it's easier to appreciate female beauty.
:up:
Damn, I don't care if the Duck is male or female, those colours are gorgeous.
That is certainly true, yes. If I grew up in the South then perhaps I would enjoy country music, for instance, though if I were so conditioned… I would actually enjoy country music.
Quoting Apollodorus
Again, if I grew up in the South I would have been influenced by whatever subcultures exists there, and they would have left an indelible mark. You just pointed out yourself they we’re conditioned this way, to enjoy certain things as opposed to others.
I don’t see how group-think relates to this. Group-think is an issue when serious errors are made because criticism is discouraged within a group. For example, if someone made a Pepsi commercial where Kendall Jenner saves BLM protesters from being shot because she tamed a police officer by giving him a Pepsi, that might appear rather tone-deaf and end up being largely counterproductive to the endeavor. Yes-(wo)men only say yes, and so mistakes are made.
I can see how this might work on a purely hypothetical level.
However, the fact remains that pop singers and record companies do what they are doing for profit in the first place, which raises questions about their ulterior motives regardless of what they say in public.
Another thing is that, in many parts of the Western world women are free to walk on the street in shorts or miniskirts and bikini tops or other revealing outfits (though not necessarily in underwear) without fear of being attacked by men. So, I'm not entirely sure what more could be achieved in this regard.
On the other hand, there are other popular trends like violent hip hop and the general "gangsta culture" that glorifies the culture of American street gangs and street hustlers. I don't know whether women and girls actually feel "empowered" when they are called, or call each other, "bitches" and "hos" and whether this actually helps reduce violence against women.
Personally, I tend to believe that in order to change the way women are judged, valued and treated, it is necessary to change the way women are seen by men. Undressing every time you want to sing something seems like a strange way to go about it and I doubt that it actually works. Judging by certain trends imported from Latin America, Asia and some African countries with high violence rates against women, the problem is far from being solved.
Apparently, in the 1960s, women decided not to wear bras in order to "smash patriarchy and advance feminism (or socialism)". I have a nagging feeling that it isn't going to happen any time soon. Though it may have some PR value for some.
Well, by "group think" I meant a situation where the individual adopts and acts on the views and behaviors of the group instead of his or her own (or where they act in ways that are different from the ways they might act if they were on their own).
And I still believe that the general culture of the society we live in does have some influence on the ways we think, act, or enjoy things. For example, in China they may enjoy eating dogs but this may seem less trendy in America or Europe, etc.
Your wording was awkward, stating “we are influenced by group-think”, because it’s like saying that we’re influenced by social conformity. Social conformity is often regarded as weak or too timid, and in that case it can be repellent.
In my experience this is the case.
Also, doesn't good fashion bring a smile to your face? Maybe you come into work early in the morning and you see a woman in a beautiful coat, isn't that nice? There's so many different styles and colors.
Quoting Apollodorus
Really? You think make up or clothes don't matter to attractiveness? I would think this one over if I were you.
Quoting Apollodorus
Just curious, would you ever say something like this to e.g. a gay man? Do gay men need to be more "respectable" and "cover up" so we can finally be respected by people like you? You want to change the way women or gay men are viewed by men? Maybe start by getting off your high horse.
I'm going to flip your statement around and advocate for that position. I'm just swapping "men" with "women" here.
"Personally, I tend to believe that in order to change the way men are judged, valued and treated, it is necessary to change the way men are seen by women."
Men want to gain the approval of women, right? So why do you all have to be so damn intimidating and unemotional all the time? Why can't you all just try to be cuter? Why not hold hands with your friends when you walk in public and wear a bit of jewelry? Why is it us striving for your approval rather than you striving for ours?
I'll put that on file for future reference.
(1) I never said that you can't be curious, (2) I never said anything about "covering up", (3) I never said anything about "gay men", and (4) I never said anyone needs to "strive for my approval". :roll:
You know _I'm_ not gay, right? ;) Very occasionally the way someone is dressed will knock me off my socks, but no, generally it's face, particularly eyes, and personality. And legs. Lovely, long... You see, now I'm horny. There's just no differentiation there.
Btw I have never observed any correlation between attentiveness to appearance and any creative skill. In fact, I'd posit an inverse correlation if Instagram were anything to go by, but in reality there's probably no correlation.
Quoting Apollodorus
You are a man, right? You're talking about changing the way women are seen by men, so maybe start with yourself. Maybe the culprit here is your own standards.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be anti-male here; I'll sometimes give women similar advice when it comes to their own conceptions of men.
I don't think it's a gay thing; I think it's just a general aesthetic appreciation. Fashion & make-up absolutely effects how attractive men consider someone. Beauty often takes skill, effort, and there's a lot that goes into it. Men are visual creatures.
I think you should try to follow the discussion before you accuse people for no reason. I was simply replying to @Possibility's remark below:
Quoting Possibility
@Possibility said that, not me. Obviously, "judged and valued" means judged and valued by society, including men.
If there is a problem with how women are judged and valued by men, then this implies that changes must be made in the way men view women.
Men in general. Not all men, because some men, myself included, do not have any problems with women. I do not go around attacking women, disrespecting them, asking them to cover up or whatever you are accusing me of. Maybe that's what you do.
Lets first identify your position.
If I'm understanding you correctly you're implying that women degrade themselves through these performances and if only things were a little more proper relations between the sexes would improve. You may not have said this explicitly but it's what I'm gathering from going over this discussion. I could have misread, I'm not perfect.
It's a question of priorities though, and it seems that more women find wealth and power more attractive relative to more men finding physical features more attractive. Cue some evolutionary psychobabble...
Of course not! I never said that, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
I said it is unnecessary, a waste of time, and I doubt that it works.
Isn't expecting women to undress in order to sing something the same as expecting them to "cover up"? If it is wrong for women in bikinis to sell cars then it should be equally wrong for women in underwear to sell music, etc.
Incidentally, you appear to be implying that women should not be seen in public without "makeup and a beautiful coat". I wonder what kind of "beautiful coat" you have in mind, maybe a burqa. Whatever it is, is expecting women to "dress up" not the same as expecting them to "cover up"?
What you seem to be implying is that a woman without makeup and a beautiful coat has less aesthetic value to you than one with makeup and a coat.
(Over)generalization but more true than not: XX (mostly) uses sex to get what XX wants; XY (mostly) wants sex. And all the evolutionary psychobabble says 'that's why it works'. :sweat:
Sure, and it could even be a complete myth, perpetuated by a superficial conformity to stereotype. Maybe women are just a bit more socialised to be sexually repressed.
https://www.livescience.com/46439-trophy-wife-myth-busted.html
This is just a lazy male blind-spot. It's cute men think a bunch of amateur sex workers in hooker clothing are actually sexually aroused by this and into the men they do it for. Many of these women are doing it precisely to men not for men; but parading around like a hooker isn't necessarily 'female sexuality' or the female sexually enjoying herself - she is not in a high state of sexual arousal or sexual attraction. She is just extorting attention for gains; she is emotionally detached and in a business-like state of mind - some of these women aren't even heterosexual. Walking around naked or skimpy is not female sexuality.
A woman dancing for her man (attached or not) to feel desired by this man is an active stimulus to female sexuality, but is much different than a stripper sliding down a pole for a bunch of random sexually uninteresting men that don't care about female sexuality at all, but get their rocks off fantasizing she is on the same page.
Actual female sexuality reacts to the male and wants to react - not calculatingly 'extort him'. Female sexuality does not work like male sexuality. Just because female sexuality is different doesn't mean heterosexual women want to look at gross female bodies over a man's. My best friend and I have been talking amongst ourselves about all the sexy men and hot bods in the Olympics and their dick prints just today; but what men want to listen to this? Zero. Women talk amongst themselves in privacy.
Women have very heightened sensitivity to the male form and the male stimulus or 'masculinity', which is why they are paradoxically so picky as the sex that must choose the right male in a group of many male suitors - when it comes to men - for the female, she hypersensitive due to over-stimulus, under-stimulus and just right stimulus, and tempermental like the serpent, but most men don't take advantage of the female weakness to self-regulate her cool blood by moving to the hottest side of the tank - instead most males neglect the male form by being lazy and poorly groomed, so they assume they are all ugly to women. The truth is the average man is an NPC to most women; not because he is ugly but because he doesn't work to appease female sexuality which is more than just visual 2D pics of dicks.
Any woman can be seduced by any kind of man. Doesn't matter what he looks like unless he is seriously grotesque. The most seductive men have women always at the arm with no power, no social status, sleeps on her couch and has no money to their name; but they do have nice muscles and a seductive way in which they move around the room and navigate.
Because they know how women work; he can seduce a woman from her husband with just the right words and drop of vocal octave that speaks directly to clitoris, thus becomes her 'lover'. Most average men are too lazy to appease the female sexuality, so it remains "dormant" to all women aside from male outliers, who obviously, are most successful. You then see a more assertive aspect of female sexuality to which she pursues, approaches, and overtly displays herself sexually for him to be taken with very little barrier. If a woman isn't assertively sexually into you and jumping your bones, it's because she's not attracted YOU (not 'men in general') and doesn't feel comfortable. It's that simple.
The physical man's body is most beautiful when in movement and in action; not stuck on paper in a photograph. This is why women say "they don't care for muscles," but fawn over them in public by giving nice biceps a squeeze. Men definitely look better.
Male bodies are most attractive to women in movement because they are built for utility, and the muscles and connections/tendons are put to work and can be observed, unlike the female form that can display "what it's for," by just looking at it.
Male form is at it's best when wielding a hammer, shuffling his hips on the dancefloor to simulate sensual strokes, or holding on to his broad shoulders when your legs are pinned behind your head and his deep testosterone-heavy voice is whispering sweet nothings in your ear.
Most heterosexual women I know actually have a disgust response talking about other women.
What really happens is hypermasculinity stifles female sexuality to enjoy the female form; because showing off too many attractive men (that may socialize women) to be more appreciative would be "too gay" or "gay as fuck" and make men uncomfortable. Women are not more beautiful and gross - but we tolerate this because men shutdown appreciative feminine appreciation toward the male form due to discomfort or making males uncomfortable in the room, so we talk amongst other women and female friends in privacy; every single healthy fertile female in her 20's talks about male bodies and penis, and I surely think about sex with men multiple times a day. By the agreeable nature of women, we are not going to compete with a bunch of males talking about tits and ass to discuss attractive males.
Sounds like some secret yoga posture we haven't heard of yet :grin:
But the notion of most heterosexual women having "a disgust response talking about other women" seems a bit exaggerated to me.
I suppose there is a certain degree of competitiveness, jealousy, and envy. However, I think it would depend on how competitive, jealous, or envious the women involved are, on who the "other women" they are talking about are and in what context, etc.
But I agree that broad shoulders, strong arms, and "masculine" voice are probably a factor in male attractiveness to women, which is only natural, even though women may not openly admit it.
You seem very keen to distance yourself from any implication that you are part of the problem. But just because a man is not actively attacking or disrespecting women, does not give them a free pass. Nor does being a man automatically render them guilty, I might add. I do want to commend you for being part of this discussion, though - I don’t imagine it’s easy discussing a topic such as this from your position. I imagine it can feel like you’re torn between defending behaviour you cannot condone and accepting culpability as a representative of all men. So I will endeavour to keep my language less accusatory. I owe you that much, at least.
But I’m going to ask you to accept a small dose of humility here, and entertain the possibility that this enlightened position ‘some men’ have is not as accepting of women as they might think. And I’m going to ask you to keep in mind Turner’s perspective as an example of what men are evidently capable of in this respect (I disagree that this is ‘just a gay thing’). I acknowledge that most men don’t have a problem with women in general, so long as they fit neatly into a particular value system, rendering their intentionality predictable. I’m saying that’s not enough. The evaluation of female singers performing in their underwear, for instance, while not actually attacking them, is nevertheless disapproving, disrespectful, and dismissive - not of the women, but of their intentionality. But I accept that I’m challenging an awareness of just how variable intentionality is, and the value of those variations, especially for women.
I’m willing to accept that what I’m trying to address here is a perspective that limits acceptance of the actions of other men as much as women. I think it has to do with the limitations of the traditional ‘male gaze’ (which I’d honestly prefer a less gender-specific name for), and I’m persisting with this discussion because I think there’s a possibility that you can understand what I’m trying to get at.
There is a standing assumption that value is measured by the appearance of an object. I don’t think that Turner is talking about equating individual value with appearance at all - he’s talking about recognising aesthetic value as potential evidence of intentionality. A woman wearing makeup and a beautiful coat has made aesthetic choices with respect to her appearance because she can, and K Turner is admiring the quality of these choices that she makes, evident in her appearance. He’s seeing past the object to her intentionality, recognising that she could have chosen any number of different aesthetics, from shape and colour to intensity and texture in every element, and that the way these chosen qualities play off each other (as well as the qualitative aspects of her form and features, movement, etc) enhances the event of perceiving her overall appearance.
But I recognise that this may not be obvious, and that we appear to be making a lot of assumptions here, with no evidence that she didn’t just fluke it, or perhaps relied on external advice. Because of this uncertainty, there’s a tendency to rely on cultural assumptions - such as the idea that women cover up to divert the male gaze - and assume Turner’s appreciation of her choosing to wear such a beautiful coat is really an appreciation of her covering up. I find this to be a reductionist view. It reduces her aesthetic value to an object in motion, denying her intentionality because it makes it easier to interpret Turner’s behaviour in appreciating her appearance. This perspective attributes all intentionality to society, whereas Turner is attributing intentionality to the woman.
It is not exaggerated when talking about sexuality and not mere aesthetics. Aesthetically wise, to a hetero woman, an 'attractive female body' is no different from a pound of garbage assembled to symmetrically to elicit something we call 'good art'.
But sexuality is far more brutal than 'art' and 'aesthetics', and sexuality is much more ruthless, and disgustingly the most pleasurable of sensations on earth, beyond that of a pile of two carefully symmetrically garbage piles we call breasts.
All I see in this thread is a bunch of male blind-spots and laziness.
The women that don't have a disgust response to the action of feeling up another woman's sensuous smooth curves are called bi-curious, sexually fluid, or bisexual - due to societal norms the impact of this is severely lessened. Just because the response is that of disgust doesn't mean it is rude or lacks tact. We can argue all day whether or not sexuality fluidity is more prominent among women than men, but let's not call bi-curious women heterosexual.
Yes, a naked objectively attractive woman lap-dancing on my lap with the intent to sexually arouse will trigger a disgust and strong aversion response which is why I will push her out of my lap; a male in which I am attracted to will not.
A man doing such behaviors to another man is certainly perceived as gay, a woman kissing another woman at a bar is supposedly not perceived as a gay act for some reason, but it certainly is. Many of these women at these bars that kiss other women and lap-dancing on each other in clubs have slept with more women than the average man that merely fantasizes. How do I know this? Because I am a woman.
Sexuality lingers on a disgust and pleasure dichotomy or axis; and it doesn't have to be overt in nature.
It has nothing to do with that. The female body is not 'attractive' to other women except in the minds of men that project their sexualities onto women. A heterosexual female is aroused only by the male body and the male form.
Men that are lazy and do not care about female sexuality use money to attract women that aren't even sexually into them. It is actually easy for men to earn money than actively attempt to be sexually appetizing to women and appease her sexual nature.
Most women don't want to fuck old men with money but will surely do so for the money alone. The male being actually sexually attractive to her or appeasing her female sexuality is up in the air and often being neglected.
Not probably. They are. It is a fact that healthy fertile women are turned on the male body and would love to see and hear more of it.
"Boyfriend" ASMR (men recording their voices) is VERY popular among young women for a reason, and more than enough to stimulate sexual arousal and sexual response.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Actually, most of my friends are married straight men who don't care about fashion. I don't surround myself with insanely fashionable men since that's not my style (you wouldn't know I was gay if you met me.) I do need to be on the lookout for well-groomed or fashionable men because that's a sign that they might be into men, and thus potential sexual partners. I keep these men on my radar. I keep all gay men on my radar regardless of how they dress.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
It's not that men need to gush over women's clothing, but a well-placed, genuine compliment on an article of clothing can go far. I'm not a woman, but I would think that men first need to establish comfort (with me they definitely need to establish comfort first, ideally vulnerability) and one of the ways they can do that is by complimenting a choice rather than e.g. a body part. I don't think some men realize how intimidating they can be. I definitely change my communication style depending on whether I'm interacting with a straight man, gay man, straight/bi woman or a lesbian... but I haven't interacted with too many lesbians so that one is kind of a mystery to me.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Are men becoming more obsessed with their appearance? As a gay man, I need to place greater focus on my appearance because I'm subject to the male gaze and men are visual. Maybe it's not fair, but it is what it is.
Quoting Possibility
100% - I'm appreciating an intentional decision here and this is not about someone "covering up" and I was confused why Apollo brought this into the discussion but this is good to clarify. The burqa accusation threw me for a loop.
Quoting Apollodorus
Alright, so you're going to tell an adult (Britney, Madonna, Gaga, take your pick) who has millions of fans worldwide, has earned millions of dollars and has wide critical acclaim that their performance style of "unnecessary" and "a waste of time."
You do you, man.
From one woman to another, just because I appreciate a good lap dance at a gentleman's club, does not make me anything more than a lady who appreciates a beautiful body who has dance moves that turn me on. It could be that you are not trying to include me amongst the "many" but I love a female snuggle.
Do I think that I am, bisexual, homosexual or not heterosexual? No, not in the end and I tried. I remained open because both body forms are attractive to me and I am very connectable with any gender being around me as they are.
As much as I love the way women care for themselves, FOR themselves and no other is HUGELY attractive to me but in the end I want a sheilding hugg. As long lasting as our layers of perfume are, as soft, smooth and toned muscles are and the creativity of two women are, I just never found it to be enough for me.
I'm capable of opening my own door but I appreciate a man doing it for me all the same and I appreciate their Thanks when I do it for them.
Maybe it comes with age because when I first arrived at our prior forum, I was extremely open to alterante ideas but over the years, as these ideas came to be? I felt in the end there was more consistent sexual arousal with the male.
I am someone who compliments any gender on anything I truly appreciate. I don't fein attention and am as truthful as I can possibly be.
That was precisely my point. Perhaps not "a lot", but too many assumptions, especially of the unexamined kind.
Which would seem to render dialogue a rather problematic endeavour .... :smile:
It sounds like you've never heard of freedom of speech.
Plus, I never said "unnecessary" and "a waste of time" in absolute terms. Of course their performance style is not a waste of time in terms of making money :grin:
I would say it would depend on how we define "attractive". On an "attractiveness-repulsion" scale you may have aesthetic appreciation, sexual appeal, disgust, etc. I would imagine it rather difficult for someone who has an aesthetic appreciation of physical beauty to find a well-proportioned body - any body, male or female - "disgusting". After all, the women we were talking about were talking about other women, not having them dancing on their laps. So, maybe you are exaggerating a bit.
Quoting Cobra
True. However, men earn money because they have to earn money for a living. Attracting women seems to be a secondary consideration. Besides, it takes two to tango. If women don't put any pressure on men to make themselves more "appetizing" to women, then of course they won't. And, anyway, if sexuality is so "brutal" and "ruthless", etc., then it shouldn't really matter, should it? That also explains male "blind-spots" and "laziness".
The way I see it, either someone is attractive or they are not. If a woman is attractive to me then she is attractive because she is attractive, not because she is making herself attractive. I think any average guy can see the difference and can tell, at least on an intuitive level, when a woman is attractive without doing anything and sometimes even in spite of doing something, and when she appears to be attractive because she is making herself attractive.
And at the point when true attraction has been established on a more fundamental level and a decision has been made to respond to it, your "brutal and ruthless" or "raw" element comes into play, and the details no longer matter.
But, in the final analysis, the real problem seems to be communication. If men and women are so different in the ways they think, feel, act, and experience everything, and conceal everything behind a wall of awkward silence, external appearances and social rituals, then how do you establish communication in any meaningful way, in the first place? You just can't. You may temporarily open up to verbal or intellectual interaction for the purpose of attaining a sexual end, but beyond that, it's back to square one, women are women and men are men, and everyone retreats behind entrenched positions. Men vote Trump and women vote Biden, and the wall goes up until next time. It isn't just sexuality that is brutal and ruthless, life can be brutal and ruthless, too. :smile:
Quoting Apollodorus
I was sharing your sentiments up and until the last line.
You are being factious right?
I really don't like making personal judgments, but based off this information, it seems you have some conflicting statements that need to be sorted out.
If women are turning you on, you have "tried" with other women, and enjoy cuddling up with another female, you are definitely sexually fluid and/or bi-curious/bisexual. Not being "enough" for you does not mean you do not like women; it just means you prefer men as the strongest preference.
Sexist nonsense has conditioned society to view this tendency in women as 'harmless' and 'less gay' or indicators of sexual interest than in males because of the devaluing of female/female relationships and intimacy. If you were a male, flags would go up everywhere. A sane man that is not sexist you are involved with would certainly have an issue with his self-proclaimed 'hetero' spouse cuddling naked with a female friend that "just doesn't do enough for you" but you enjoy how she feels.
You may not be biromantic or romantically interested in women, but sounds like when you "tried" you just met a woman you had no chemistry with. Lack of sexual chemistry does not mean you do not like women, just like bad sex with a man does not mean a woman is a lesbian.
Hetero women are not interested in women physically and do not get turned on by them. It's not that women aren't enough, it's that they aren't eligible or interesting considerations period.
"Factious"? I am merely pointing to the reality on the ground. We are divided by many things. Politics is just one of them and exemplifies the situation. I believe in diversity but diversity is best taken in the context of unity. Otherwise said, unity in multiplicity is the key to peace, happiness, and prosperity.
This male-thinking. It is not difficult at all to separate aesthetics from sexually stimulating.
Someone that looks like Chris Hemsworth can be aesthetically pleasing and demonstrably 'perceived' as being a sexual being - but still elicit repulsion and disgust when sexual arousal and sexual interest is into play - hence bad sexual chemistry. Aesthetically-pleasing women are disgusting to think about sexually because I would not want another woman's fluids in my mouth. It's really that simple.
Men that admire aesthetically-pleasing built men don't want to perform oral sex on them, kiss up and down their body. Beauty and sexual attraction overlap for men probably because of testosterone, but not for women that tend to be more discriminate and choosy.
This typically doesn't do it for women. You will never find a woman flicking it to an 'aesthetically pleasing' male picture.
It doesn't matter. There is nothing attractive to me about the female form. I gloss right over it and have never thought another woman was 'beautiful' in a way that is indistinguishable from finding a chair or a wall with paint splashed on it beautiful.
The male form is much more pleasing to look as a preference because it elicits reactions beyond that of mere aesthetics unless he is subjectively ugly.
For hetero women, a beautiful female form is no different from looking at a pretty wall. For hetero men, a beautiful female elicits a response beyond mere aesthetic attraction.
Quoting Apollodorus
Men and women are not that different. They just aren't identical. The point of my post is saying just this. Women and men are not identical due to physiological distinctions that have affects; but they are not of differentiation in kind.
Establishing effective communication is easy and being done by everyone without a listening problem.
BOOM. :100:
(I'm usually more articulate ...)
Rather, the question is, do people even want to communicate?
I get that. I was just curious how talking about women comes to evoke a feeling of "disgust". But, as you say, it doesn't matter.
Quoting Cobra
As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with that. I said "if" men and women are so different (as it is often claimed). My personal view is that differences are being exaggerated and often exploited for commercial, political, or other reasons.
Quoting Cobra
Sure. Provided that there is a will to do so. And that's where the problem is. Society and the world in general would be a much better place if this were the case. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be so.
That's what I'm saying. If there were a genuine will to communicate and to live peacefully and in unity and harmony, presumably there would be less crime, violence, wars, or poverty in the world.
Unfortunately, self-interest tends to come first and this happens at individual, national, and international level.
It no different to men that feel disgust and revulsion/aversion to evoke subject change when a group of women talk about and discuss the male body in a sensuous, attractive, or arousing manner, even if not "sexual".
The internet does not count. I mean in male dominant spaces; discussing the male form and figure in an appreciative manner that speaks directly to female sexual interest and arousal. If you want to see what actual female sexuality is like under the gaze of the woman, I would watch the movie Portrait of a Lady on Fire; which was made precisely to expose men to this phenomena; so absent in modern culture most men can't even autistically tell when a woman is sexually attracted to them or not. Or most importantly, whether a woman is allowed to be sensuous in her element because she is aroused by the desire in which her body is reacting off from her man that evokes this within her - or simply 'dancing at men for gains' in an asexual fashion to appease the man because men are conditioned to be utterly insensitive, thus oblivious to the senusous or sexual female expressing selfless desire toward the male.
I have no qualms with this movie as it depicts the intensity of female desire (regardless toward another female - nonetheless, applies to men as well). Most men are oblivious to female sexuality, and allowing it into more spaces by implication helps the man - instead of falling back on useless statistics and pragmatic heuristics, 'she doesn't respond like a man would, she must not like men,' ..
Most women don't want to sit around a bunch of men talking about tits, curvy-figures and asses all day unless we are getting an ego-boost or being flattered ourselves. ONLY if we are attracted to the said man in question; do such compliments appease female sexuality or have any effect.
We sit around and tolerate it, or either jump on the bang-wagon "yeah, I agree," hence higher agreeableness in women, to reduce conflict and resistance from the men in question. Not because 'women are more beautiful than men because men are ugly' or whatever. Recognize this blind spot. The reality is most hetero women do go around daydreaming about a beautiful curvy woman just because they put up with the discussions; they dream about square angular males.
The agreeableness of women and the lack of interest, desire and intimidation to compete with the robust social dominance of men - even down to the very fact that men have more powerful and louder vocal cords, is largely absent in women, but doesn't in any way imply women enjoy discussing other women as a preference relative to the male form and her love for male beauty.
Most women want to come off as not being 'unfeminine' talking about their desires a certain way in the presence of males, but obviously I don't care two hoots about that.
Male blind spots are common in this sort of thing, and just heavily reflective everywhere. Estrogen-heavy women have no interest shouting over a group of males about the beautiful aesthetic of a large penis, but will gladly do so amongst women to where there is no competition, maliciousness, stifling, aversion or hostility to the female expression of sexual desire and enjoyment.
Not only is the male form and giant veiny phalluses that erupt semen the most beautiful display to ever throb it's way into one's daydreams and fantasies, it is more preferred to that of some female 'hip sway'.
Miss me with all the men that'll poor in going 'ew, no thanks, that's too much info, how dare you be a heterosexual woman and talk about lickable chiseled male V's, male thunder thighs, and throbbing apendanges in my presence' at this comment while ranting on about big ass, curvy figures, and their obsession with the female form that erectifies their penis so large it throws them into another realm.
Interesting post.
Personally, in my experience within straight male circles they virtually never talk about tits and ass. It would be a very strange topic to bring up around a group of men. I guess maybe I heard this topic once when I was in college, but as an adult it's just not something straight men discuss with each other (or with a gay man, in my case.)
I do agree with you though that straight female circles are almost certainly raunchier than straight male circles. The straight men keep it pretty tame sexually and I would honestly be flabbergasted to hear a group of adult men going on about tits and ass.
Quoting Cobra
I think that's really cool and brave of you, but -- and I'm sure you're aware of this -- some men are almost certainly going to take it as a sexual come-on or an indicator that you're sexually available.
Strange post.
You really find male voices overpowering and intimidating? I am asking because when I eat out in a busy restaurant, for example, what I tend to hear is female voices. Or perhaps men are instinctively more receptive to female voices and vice versa. But I admit that some men can be very loud and even sound or actually become aggressive when they've had too much to drink.
Incidentally, you mention "male form" and "male beauty". How much of this would you say is physical and how important is it in comparison with other forms of beauty and/or attractiveness?
You are saying that "sexuality lingers on a disgust and pleasure dichotomy or axis" and that "sexuality is disgustingly the most pleasurable of sensations on earth". Why "disgustingly"?
Also, you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking on issues of sexuality and you are saying some interesting things. May I ask if all these are your own ideas or how did you come to hold these views and when? Has philosophy had any influence on any of this or is there no relation?
I will say, though, that the OP was not discussing sexuality in particular, but allure: the quality of being powerfully and mysteriously attractive or fascinating. As a woman (albeit a decade or two older), I obviously don’t find the female form distinctly ‘mysterious’ as such. My eye is, however, attracted to the potential of the female form: ie. those qualitative aspects in other women’s appearances that are suggestive of my own untapped capacity, such as fitness and strength.
I think this is one area where we do ourselves a disservice to mimic the limitations of the ‘male gaze’ and dismiss this attraction to our own gender on the grounds that we’re not sexually aroused by it. You’re telling Tiff that her attraction to women is sexual because it’s based on physical touch and comfort, but that doesn’t ring true for me, and I would say the same thing about men who find comfort in the sports-sanctioned physical touch of other men. Not everything is about sex.
I don’t find a ‘lap-dance’ all that appealing myself, and I would actively discourage an attractive woman who thought she could entice me in this way. However, I don’t think ‘disgusted’ would be a response to the female form as such, but more to her intentions towards me, especially if she blatantly disregards my intentionality. I’d respond the same way towards a man who didn’t bother to gauge my interest, even if he were ‘objectively’ attractive.
But I do agree with you that women’s attraction to men (or women) is not always visual or sexual. It’s not about observation and measurement, but about perceived potential in our interaction with them. When we actively choose to engage, we’re looking for what we both potentially bring to the encounter. If what I’m looking for is diamonds, then I’m chasing a very different potential in a man to if I was looking for an all-night romp.
Even sexually, we know that a man who looks attractive but doesn’t show any interest in our intentionality - in what we really (not assumedly) want in that moment - is going to be a very unsatisfying fuck. We want men who can make an effort to attract ALL our sensory attention throughout the encounter. The most arousing aspects of a man are his attention to what we want, and his capacity and willingness to collaborate in getting what he wants. It’s really that simple. We are guided by sensory cues, but an intelligent woman isn’t fooled by them, unless she chooses to be.
Of course they don't; because they spend all their days openly and overtly expressing their attraction to tits, ass, and desire through their innate social dominance of media, even in intimate co-ed sex groups, and all the way down to walking the streets of an inner city through catcall and cold approaches to men actively and directly say what on your body is most attractive; all the way down to sexualization of puffed facial lips when the woman is covered.
Why they spend their "off-time" also talking about tits/ass? Meanwhile, we can take a poll on how many women have leered and discreetly, and selflessly, admired the male form in all it's beauty - with high numbers from the women that is not readily observable and reflective in reality - and even more so diminished due to utter insensitivity to the female expressing admiration to the male form because male sexuality, sensuality, and what is desirable dominates.
And I stress it is not because men are 'more weak to women,' and cannot resist because the woman is 'so much more beautiful than ugly men', which is lazy at best - but because the woman also has this vulnerability to have her discernment suspended under the guise of the testosterone-heavy phenotypically distinct and sexually dimorphic male.
Here we see reverse with men/women. Women are more discreet; and let their hair down in the privacy (typically) or amongst other women with little male presence.
Yes, there are loud raunchy women that adopt more overly sexual and vulgar communication styles in mixed-sex/co-ed groups where there are both men and women because they must adopt more masculine communication styles in order to be noticed; not necessary "heard". But noticed in a way that is satisfactory and productive.
Quoting K Turner
Men cannot make distinctions because of otherwise, poor ability to read the room (or read a heterosexual woman). This is the meme and talk of the town; women are not mysterious. It is just through years of societal conditioning that has repressed and devalued authentic female sexuality as 'uninteresting' or 'not like the man's; so she is not sexually interested,' without literally stripping naked in front of him. Just like not a single man will watch the movie I posted because; "looks too soft," and "not for me, just for women,".
And that the stripper is to be the actuality and the reality of the woman in her senusous element - to which we've seen women mold and adapt more readily to the societal climate of 'sexuality' to be noticed sexually by men because they are not sensitive to what it is like (or looks like) to be subjected to the female gaze.
I stress, though, society would look entirely different in female sexuality was allowed to reign free AND men were conditioned to react - and respond to it.
If only men were receptive and not oblivious to it, though.
Hmmm maybe you haven't been around many jocks on or off the playing field or nightclub bar staff or construction workers on the job or stripclub patrons ... it's always silly, subliminally dick-measuring, trash talk carried over from adolescence that many, maybe even most, hetero males (in urban America for sure) don't seem to ever fully outgrow. A friend who was a caddy for years told me how rich old dudes would tell more T&A lies out on the golf course when they weren't bitching about their wives or bratty kids.
I don't have any problems with dick jokes or dick measuring contests among groups of men. I was more talking about e.g. one of us walking into a conversation among a group of men where they're like "yeah that woman had really big, nice tits" or "yeah I love big titties."
I wouldn't be offended obviously, it would be ridiculous to the point of hilarious. It's like we're going back to the 3rd grade.
I can see men who are very comfortable with each other using T&A jokes as long as they keep it light and sarcastic.
Come to think of it, I did play rugby in college around 10 years ago and it did get quite sexually derogatory towards women. Yeah, that culture is under attack right now. In 2010 it was permitted, in 2021 it's very, very suspect. I am in favor of this cultural change -- young men (or any men, but especially impressionable young men) shouldn't be referring to women like that since it just reinforces toxic behavior and the objectification of women. There's just such a lack of positive male role models.
Male voices are deeper and heavier than women voices. Unless the woman is literally screaming in 'high energy banter' and the men are practically speaking in low voices which is probably what you are hearing; feminine vocal tones are almost always drowned out by male voices easy.
Men listen to other men more and will completely ignore the soft-spoken feminine voice whistling in the corner unless she adopts a more assertive and masculine communication style; and even then there is still no assurance you will even be "heard".
But sure, pipe down guys, the woman is speaking - says the man with the stronger voice that allows women to interject. I get this a lot.
Quoting Apollodorus
It is entirely physical. Women are not blind; but as I said hypersensitive to the male form - which is paradoxically what contributes to the female choosiness (off/on) switching you see. A male can be everything; but she may not like his smell - and her blood suddenly runs cold.
"Physical" doesn't mean arms and kneecaps; it means that which is innately male - or unique to the Y chromosome. Male traits - vocal octaves and tones, male pheromones, the male gait - yes the male gait is attractive; when it protrudes his chest and walks confidently in a masculine manner - he could not have a dime to his name; but women still SEE this man - and thus react/respond.
You could say "money and status" but I stress this is not really an element of female sexuality. This female sexuality when it is suspended and rationality applied. Unless it's some weird kink, not a single woman would be aroused by 'money'.
I am speaking of sex and sexuality; but it is not ABOUT sex.
The point I am making is the reason the female form is 'obsessed over' is not because it is more 'beautiful' than the male; but because the female form SUCCEEDS in preying on the opposite sexes vulnerability to the female form - by bias - to favor it above the males; thus elicit behaviors, innate motivations to act, and other - onto the male NOT because this is absent in the female or that the female cannot 'obsess' over the male form too.
Sex, aesthetics, beauty, etc.. are all tied into ethics. It has a lot to do with philosophy.
Exactly. Many men need that ritual as a sublimated (soft-simulated?) "release", many don't or not very often. I tend to find those situations get old too fast and a signal to me that I need to look elsewhere for the only thing better than great music or prolonged silence: companionable dialogue.
This is likely wildly personal. There is nothing attractive to me about looking at women; my eyes don't divert to them or their figures - unless you mean their cosmetics or something like that - to then it's not really about the WOMAN, but what she is doing or how she is behaving (e.g., fashion, make-up, "I want to be like her," not a part of her or within her [non-sexually penetrative or phallically speaking]) - which is more so a matter of familiarity than anything else, no different than how I gravitated toward my mother as preference of relatability, familiarity and comfort over my present good father. Yeah, sure, mom is pretty today but not because men look like shit or worse than females or something lol.
I 100x would rather watch a shirtless man chopping wood than stare at some woman at the gym workout on the treadmill. Not even because I want to have to sex with him, but just because the way men's body moves and interacts with the environment is far more interesting to look at. Hardly 'mysterious' because I can actively explain why that is - just enjoyable; probably because as someone with estrogen, I am more hypersensitive to my sexually dimorphic complimentary.
Sure I can acknowledge 'this woman is symmetrical in the face' if that's what you mean; but only when this attention is demanded of me to pay attention. I do not innately pay attention; or seek to find beauty in a female form because they are female like men do.
If you're a hetero woman that stares at other women all day; of course you'll probably have habitually conditioned yourself to prefer looking at women. But as a woman that doesn't do this, I am only sensitive to the male form in terms of being 'allured' anywhere.
As women we are bombarded with tits, ass and the female figure just as boys are as girls constantly in this society. It's no surprise most women say they prefer looking at women more.
She said herself she is physically attracted to, has be aroused by women to the point of experimenting with them [which just proved my point - women kissing other women in this clubs, etc.. are almost always sleeping with other women]; and sexist norms and nonsensical conditioning loves to devalue these interactions, but a spade is a spade. It seems she is confusing her sexual allure to the female form with aesthetical attraction [desire to be her].
Women leaving snail trails in her lap at gentlemen's club is not a behavior of hetero women and not the same as giving your bestie a hug lol.
I assure you most heterosexual women do not do this; nor enjoy it. So either this is a result of nonsensical sexist norms imposed on women to "fit in," or appease the man - or there is sexual fluidity yet to be acknowledged.
Quoting Possibility
Sure; you just don't like lap-dances, fair enough.
Substitute "lap dance" with any type of behavior you find attractive in the male unique to his form - then picture a woman doing it.
It's going to be a large no because she is a female in form - and the female in her form elicits of revolting disgust; so you discourage her to move away. By "disgust" I do not mean vomit on yourself or gag. So long as the pursuer is male in form he is eligible or has the capacity to elicit pleasure within you that is entirely absent when it comes to another woman.
It doesn't have to be sexual in nature, but acknowledgment of these capacities and complimentary attributes are exactly what I am speaking of.
Men want everyone to hop on the bandwagon and just agree women are more beautiful or something like that; but I will push back on this because this is a very male centric way of thinking and women are used to just 'agreeing' with it - because it must be true and the way; just because its a dominant influence within our lives.
You mean the same women that typically (in my experience) have a weakness or vulnerability to the female in form - and stronger tendencies to be seduced or hypnotized by a female and all her 'attractive' non-sexual beauty, to the point where they may 'experiment' (to gauge their pleasure - or - disgust) response. Ahem, exhibit A's.
Or, "in my hay day, I've tried a few women and it just didn't do it for me, something was missing... not the disgust, just the pleasure."
Sure. Very 'hetero', eh? I wish a woman would, I would file a harassment complaint like more men should be doing. Yes, not finding your sexually dimorphic counterpart more alluring in a non-sexual way visually speaking as a sexual species designed to be hypersensitive and receptive (whether we like it or not) to these specific traits of the XX and the XY, is certainly bizarre.
But I may just be biasing it with my own self. How these women are talking just doesn't compute to me.
So why is it when a woman speaks on sex and sexuality toward the male in accordance to the OP, there is suddenly a problem and a circus of skepticism and "it's not all about sex.." unless it's a bunch of men saying it is and all of a sudden I am 'mimicing the male' because I am expressing an aspect of female sexuality. This is precisely the stifling I was talking about.
OP cleverly says, "most men watch porn," but doesn't acknowledge that many women watch gay male porn and prefer porn with no women in it; men get up in arms about this and uncomfortable, shutting this discussion down in my experience.
Everything is about sex. Sex sells. Beautiful people sell to, but only because many people want to subconsciously mate with them or be them so we can go forth and multiply easier with others - and it is much easier to fantasize non-sexually about a beautiful human because of their wonderful genes we all want to snag a piece of to go forth and multiply. All innate biological reactions like digestion.
We are sexual species; unless 'birthing hips' and 'women are all curves and men all angles," and so forth are all equally irrelevant to the OP just like my own.
I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense, actually, and I agree with you.
Personally, I tend to react negatively more to people’s actions than to physical things, for example, when someone is telling lies or trying to manipulate me like making me buy something that I don’t want, join an organization that I have no interest in, or generally making me do things that serve their own agenda.
This is why I don’t buy into stuff like the shows of Madonna and others. I have nothing against them as a person, but to me it looks totally fake and like a form of mass manipulation and control like in some weird cult or sect. But people apparently get upset when they hear this and they start lecturing you and trying to tell you that you are wrong and that you should do as you are told and not dare resist the mass trend or movement that is being imposed on you by “society”. A bit like what is happening on some online forums.
Regarding male and female voices, apparently, nearly half of Americans think that male voices are more powerful, so I’m guessing that the other half don’t think so?
In any case, for some unknown reason, I tend to hear female voices more clearly than male voices, especially when they are in a group. It doesn’t bother me at all, and it isn’t a criticism, it’s just that I tend to notice them over male voices. Maybe the female voice sounds more “musical” to male ears and you instinctively notice it before you notice the more “dull” male voice.
But I do agree that voice is very important, it tells you a lot about a person, for example, if they are being honest or telling you stories for some ulterior reason.
So, voice and sound in general seems to be as important as sight, perhaps even more important because to see something you need to keep your eyes on it, whereas sound is closer to you and tends to surround you from all sides and is in a way similar to feeling by touch.
Maybe this is why, in addition to visual images, music is used to evoke a certain response from the public.
Quoting Cobra
I did watch it and I enjoyed the music and the scenery. Just a bit emotional, maybe. Other than that, I can't see much difference to a story about a guy and a girl, to be honest.
Quoting Apollodorus
Madge isn't performing for people like you. You're not her target audience. Yeah, we're going to get kind of defensive when you come in as an outsider and you're like "oh this is fake" or "why does she gotta do all of this?"
A certain kind of pop music is kinda campy and ridiculous - that's just what it is. It's a space for certain types of people to express themselves.
Do you like MMA or masculine sports like football? Think of a sport or a masculine activity that you like.
Now imagine a group of women or gay men come in and start saying "why do men need to be this aggressive?" or "why can't they be cuter and express their feelings more, it just feels so repressive!"
You know what football could use? More gay love stories.
You'd probably start to get a little annoyed after a while, no?
The claim may be made but that doesn't make it true. I'm one of those ladies who fall into that small group.
@Cobra
Snail trails.
Wow! How cool are you? :cool:
I never said she was. And even if she was, I'm not interested, period. There is no legal requirement for me to justify not liking her shows.
Quoting K Turner
I can't imagine anyone saying that. People are doing it for fun or for money and it's not illegal.
Plus, the OP is about the female form, not about MMA.
There is a physiological difference, e.g.
According to several studies, two hearing assessment tools—auditory evoked potential and oto-acoustic emissions tests—show differences between men and women. These tools are objective tests, meaning that the variations suggest an innate physiological difference in the male and female auditory systems. Neuroanatomic studies have also found that speech perception tends to be treated bilaterally in female brains and unilaterally in male brains. In other words, speech generally activates neurons in both hemispheres for women, but predominantly in one hemisphere for men. Finally, some studies suggest that women make greater use of visual cues in understanding speech, especially as they age. These studies all suggest that the auditory system and speech perception are different in men and women.
https://www.lobe.ca/en/blog/adulte-hearing/Do-Men-and-Women-Hear-Differently
Are you American? I find that American women in general have much louder voices, speak in a lower tone register with less tonal and dynamic variation than women elsewhere. So that gives them the effect of being dominant, aggressive, intimidating.
Did anyone bother to read the Buddhist text I posted earlier?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/574131
I don't think self-interest is the culprit. Rather, it's contempt, hostility. The normalization and preference of contempt and hostility.
The oppsoite of caring for others isn't selfishness, it's contempt/hostility.
Quoting baker
Yes, I think something along those lines is probably true.
Quoting baker
I don't think I quite agree with that. Louder than other English-speaking women, e.g., English, Irish, maybe. But definitely NOT aggressive, they are just being themselves.
I would say Japanese and Chinese women can sound aggressive. And, above all, Arabs. But none of them sound as aggressive as the men.
By my dinosaur standards, they _are_ aggressive, and this isn't mutually exclusive with "being themselves".
I find that generally, it's the women who are more aggressive.
We'll have to disagree on that then :grin:
Nothing wrong with being loud if they are being themselves, is there? Even Spaniards and Italians can be loud but, again, because they are being themselves.
Japanese women may sound aggressive because of their language and Arab women possibly because of both language and culture. But definitely not Americans.
So this is not an aggressive dog, he's just "being himself"?
Being loud doesn't count as "aggressive" in my view. You sometimes get groups of teenage girls that have had a few drinks and are a bit loud, and sometimes women or girls may start a fight with other girls but that's very rare. I just don't think you can extrapolate from this that women in general are "aggressive".
Beauty is in the eye of the bone holder.
?
The extrapolation was never that women in general are aggressive. That's all on you.
The original claim was that American women tend to be more aggressive than other women.
Also, where I come from, being loud is generally considered aggressive.
I get that. However, I believe that this in itself is an unwarranted generalization.
When I said that personally I tend to hear female voices over male ones I meant this only in the sense that my brain notices or registers them NOT that I find them "aggressive" or in any way "annoying".
Different people see things differently. To me, European women do not sound aggressive at all. Some may be loud, e.g., Italian and Spanish women, and others may be more softly-spoken, e.g., French, English, Irish.
Outside Europe, I would say that Indian women are similar to Europeans; Japanese women sound "aggressive" (due to language and the way sounds are articulated) without being aggressive; Chinese women sound aggressive and can be aggressive (due to more aggressive culture than the Japanese); Arab women sound aggressive and are aggressive (due to both language and culture), etc.
Having said that, it depends on a wide range of factors such as culture, language, class, education, upbringing, individual character and personality, situation, etc.
In any event, I put Americans in the same category as Europeans. They may be louder than some Europeans, but I fail to see how this translates as "aggressive". Being loud does not mean that they are going to start a fight or attack you, does it?
Unless you do something to upset them, in which case you can't really complain that they are aggressive toward you .... :smile:
Interesting…
Sure.
Wait till you get age specific hearing loss. If you're the typical male, you'll lose the high frequencies first, so that you won't hear female voices so well anymore. heh.
It could mean that. A trajectory is loudness -- verbal aggression -- physical aggression. In fact, many people here already class loudness as verbal aggression.
Americans tend to be upset by the very fact that other nations exist at all. That's why they feel justified to invade other countries and teach them to submit to 'murica.
I think I understand what you are trying to say. However, personally, I have zero experience of aggressive American women. Loud, compared to some Europeans, yes. But definitely not aggressive. On the contrary, the ones I know are polite, well-mannered, and very friendly. To me, this is sufficient evidence that being loud does not equate being aggressive.
In fact, as a general rule, I find that if you are courteous, respectful, and friendly to people, they tend to be nice in return.
I am not aware of Americans invading more countries than other nations. If I am not mistaken, Slavic people invaded the European territories they occupy at present. The same is true of Germanic peoples. They invaded most of Europe and founded great nations like Germany, England, and France. There were Germanic kingdoms in Italy and Spain, not to speak of Scandinavian countries. And don't forget the Romans.
Age specific hearing loss? Well, I think I'll have to wait a long time for that to happen. And when it does happen, I can always get a hear aid, can't I? I mean one of those where you can turn down the volume when it gets too loud .... :grin:
Toward you, perhaps, because you're male.
There's a saying: Nobody can hate a woman as much as another woman.
As long as you make the first step, right?
But Americans are doing it now, when we are supposedly civilized. Most other nations stopped invading other countries long ago.
And women as they age tend to lose the lower frequencies, ie. their hearing for male voices deteriorates.
A match made in heaven!
Ah, the peaceful history of the United Kingdom...
It's all probably somehow due to the habits of certain painters, I think. Unfortunately, we have rather high-flown libertines to blame for all of this.
You could be right there. There is supposed to be a different sort of chemistry between males and females. Or so they say.
Quoting baker
Well, I've seen women or girls hating each other at first sight and later becoming best friends. So, it isn't always like that. Hatred isn't a particularly elevating feeling, anyway, and people with proper upbringing tend to learn to control negative emotions, in the same way you learn not to cry or start a temper tantrum as you grow up.
Quoting baker
Not really. In most cases people just look at one another and know they can be friendly without any "first step" being made by either of them.
Quoting baker
Yes, but only because of international law or some other reason. For example, Germans are currently unable to invade anyone because they lack a proper military. Invasions can be costly and hence not feasible in the case of poorer countries, etc.
Quoting baker
Well, that's how the cookie crumbles, I suppose. Maybe whoever made us had the right idea, after all.
I think that assessment misses a significant distinction between the motives of males and females. Natural selection for reproduction decided that one sex will be the "aggressor". In some species, it's the females.
In terms of perspectives, human males think like predators, while females think like prey. Males do the stalking, but females are vigilant toward that predatory gaze. Ironically, depending on the circumstances, that appraising gaze may be welcomed or avoided. For example, females are portrayed as willing prey for vampires, even though his bite may have dire consequences, such as unwanted pregnancy. The bottom line is that males are all-in, while females are more ambivalent, hence their reputation for coyness. But, for reproduction of the species, some appreciation for the male form is necessary to overcome the appropriate fear of predation. :smile:
[i]A man chases a girl until she catches him
He runs after a girl until he's caught
He fishes for a girl until she's landed him
It all comes out exactly the way she thought
Uncertain, he tags along behind
Uncertain, till she makes up his mind
A man chases a girl until she catches him
But don't run too fast while you are saying "No"
And once you've caught him don't ever let him go[/i]
___Irving Berlin
PS__I suppose my obscure point above is that the male is more analytical about his prey, focusing on delicious body parts. Meanwhile, the female is more holistic : either he's after me, or he's just not that into me. :joke: