Why do guys like to look at pictures more than women?

[latitude]

This tendency has always baffled me-- or at least, it is a tendency I have observed-- that men are very interested in looking at pictures of women or videos of women and most women have little to no interest in pictures or videos of men. Is this something others have also observed, or has my small sampling size skewed the results to this end?

 

[QuarkCharmer]

I tend to think that women are just less open about the topic.

 

[turbo]

Have you ever opened the pages of a womens' magazine on style, health, fashion? Their ads are wall-to-wall women! I think your conclusion falls apart due to a pretty big selection effect. Media aimed at women is heavily woman-oriented, with female models.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Have you ever opened the pages of a womens' magazine on style, health, fashion? Their ads are wall-to-wall women! I think your conclusion falls apart due to a pretty big selection effect. Media aimed at women is heavily woman-oriented, with female models.

I don't think women "like" looking at women models. I believe they look for comparison and suggestions. They look at them much differently than men. Mens health mags are full of half naked guys and I don't really like looking at them.

Men have very basic needs for sex. A man can be washing the dishes and if an ad on the tv comes on with a lady in a swim suit, a man can easily get excited and take care of business right then and there. Women don't have that kind of response to images. I find they are much more complex and require much more involvement with emotions and setting. In the end a man just wants to have sex with as many women as possible as often as possible. A women is much more selective as she traditionally has the investment of raising the baby.

 

[DanP]

I don't think women "like" looking at women models.

If you where an average women would you like to look at picture of other women with perfect bodies, displaying excellent genetics and the will to stay fit ? Dont think so. Most likely you would start a "fat acceptance movement" and cry "sexual objectification":P

I believe they look for comparison and suggestions. They look at them much differently than men. Mens health mags are full of half naked guys and I don't really like looking at them.

That's because you are not gay. We the straight men enjoy looking at naked women anywhere at anytime.

In the end a man just wants to have sex with as many women as possible as often as possible. A women is much more selective as she traditionally has the investment of raising the baby.

Oh, Greg going down to the road of behavioral evolution. This is something new. Welcome to the dark side :P Remember Zahavi.

 

[FrancisZ]

Save perhaps for the asexual amongst us: isn't everyone attracted to something? I just don't find women as overt about it as men, usually. Certainly, there's always an exception.

For many people, preferences are a private matter.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

If you where an average women would you like to look at picture of other women with perfect bodies, displaying excellent genetics and the will to stay fit ? Dont think so. Most likely you would start a "fat acceptance movement" and cry "sexual objectification":P

I would probably rush out and buy the advertised products in hopes that they can transform me into the models on the pages. That's the idea right?

 

[mege]

I think it's a little bit of everything mentioned so far, but I think much of it comes down to something common: there is a cultural norm that women are pure, special, and meant to be revered (which the feminist movement calls 'objectification' in it's attempt to turn it into a perjorative). So, men are more willing to see that 'pureness' (or lack there of in a sense of oddity) whereas there is nothing special about a man to a woman since they're taught subconciously about this specialness in themselves. Even in areas where men are put on pedistals, it's not because 'they're a man' (think pro sports stars) but because they represent a celeb status. Women are put on pedistals just for the fact that they're a woman far more often. Unfortunately, because of this - women's achievements are often diminished because we (as a culture) are used to the ad hoc specialness of women. In a sense it's expected that a woman gets the spotlight. (I understand that this view is a bit nieve - but I feel that it's only perverted by extreme greed of certain cultures and the basic goodness of this ideal is still there in many different applied forms.)

The absolute basis for this is likely the miracle of birth - male god figures weren't found until the dawn of historical civilization when power systems started becoming the norm. Nearly all pre-historical civilization 'cultures' worshiped descriptly asexual or female gods.

 

[FrancisZ]

I think it's a little bit of everything mentioned so far, but I think much of it comes down to something common: there is a cultural norm that women are pure, special, and meant to be revered (which the feminist movement calls 'objectification' in it's attempt to turn it into a perjorative). So, men are more willing to see that 'pureness' (or lack there of in a sense of oddity) whereas there is nothing special about a man to a woman since they're taught subconciously about this specialness in themselves. Even in areas where men are put on pedistals, it's not because 'they're a man' (think pro sports stars) but because they represent a celeb status. Women are put on pedistals just for the fact that they're a woman far more often. Unfortunately, because of this - women's achievements are often diminished because we (as a culture) are used to the ad hoc specialness of women. In a sense it's expected that a woman gets the spotlight. (I understand that this view is a bit nieve - but I feel that it's only perverted by extreme greed of certain cultures and the basic goodness of this ideal is still there in many different applied forms.)

The absolute basis for this is likely the miracle of birth - male god figures weren't found until the dawn of historical civilization when power systems started becoming the norm. Nearly all pre-historical civilization 'cultures' worshiped descriptly asexual or female gods.

This is actually very interesting. I remember Joseph Campbell (in "The Power of Myth" series) mentioning something about how, even still that inkling survives: that the innate desire to essentially enthrone a woman, has pervaded history; and even despite of any intentional female iconoclasm.

Mary is a good example of this...


[URL]http://www.articulosreligiosos.com/img/productos/IMVG001A424-0.jpg[/URL]


Not to make excuses, of course, for any bizarre subconscious perversion I might have; but as a Catholic, I have to admit, it does still give me warm fuzzy feelings to worship a sort of meta-woman.

If you look at it: there's also nothing really overtly sexual about that statue either (she's completely covered up); and yet, I confess that I do very much like looking at it somehow.

Perhaps the feeling it evokes, somehow touches the very base-essence of human desire: the need to be nurtured. And maybe for guys: sexuality (via ogling women) is a sort of short-cut to that inner peace.

Probably, it would be better though, to be ogling your significant other; and not simply a woman you'll never know personally.

 

[DanP]

This is actually very interesting. I remember Joseph Campbell (in "The Power of Myth" series) mentioning something about how, even still that inkling survives: that the innate desire to essentially enthrone a woman, has pervaded history; and even despite of any intentional female iconoclasm.

Interesting theory but which kinda defies the facts we know about how women where actually treated for thousands of years by society. Rather than being enthroned, they where robbed by civil rights, forced into marriages, bound to some idiot for life thanks to the Christian dogma and so on, banned from sciences, and generally treated like crap by society. Weird ways to treat a princess :P

If you look at it: there's also nothing really overtly sexual about that statue either (she's completely covered up); and yet, I confess that I do very much like looking at it somehow.

Francis man, are you into nuns ?

And maybe for guys: sexuality (via ogling women) is a sort of short-cut to that inner peace.

We are not wired evolutionarily to seek inner peace in sex. We are wired to seeks sex. And this behavior is responsible for throwing away a lot of good things sometimes. This is why sometimes humans prefer a wild and playful partner for sex, and not a a very reliable partner, but plain and tern. Our sexual behavior is not always the the best thing for us. It sometimes works against us and destroy the inner peace we may have had. But is hard to fight against those powerful modulations on behavior.

Probably, it would be better though, to be ogling your significant other; and not simply a woman you'll never know personally.

Ill ruin the rainbow once again. Seeing a women (man) you know by a short time romantically, or a hot one you had not had sex yet , but there is potential for that causes powerful activations in dopamine system;while seeing your SO of many years usually results in activation of portions of brains linked to empathy. There is some interesting research on this. Dopaminergic reward system vs empathy systems, and interesting tug-o-war.

How sad is that ? Nature play pranks on us :P

 

[nucleargirl]

I actually find images of beautiful women more eye-catching than images of men... like most beautiful women look beautiful to me, but supposedly good looking male models... well, a lot of them just don't do it for me. hot women look hot... but hot men... well, I would need to get to know them first!

 

[brocks]

A man can be washing the dishes ...

Not a *real* man.

 

[FrancisZ]

Interesting theory but which kinda defies the facts we know about how women where actually treated for thousands of years by society. Rather than being enthroned, they where robbed by civil rights, forced into marriages, bound to some idiot for life thanks to the Christian dogma and so on, banned from sciences, and generally treated like crap by society. Weird ways to treat a princess :P

Accentuate the positive Dan. If you watch the documentary, what Campbell was saying is that our earliest religions were of female divinity, rather than male; and only later on (as you mention also) was that overturned. Yet, even still, was his point: that we (in western religions at least) have essentially transposed that notion of "Mother Goddess" unto Mary, "The Mother of GOD." Which, if you are Catholic, has a lot of personal significance.

Francis man, are you into nuns?

Actually yes, I do find nuns very beautiful; and for the same reason I do Amish women, and Muslim ladies that wear a Hijab. Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with being forbidden and covered; save for the fact, in each case, their garments naturally draw attention to the face.

Really, I guess it's just because they don't were make-up. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to wear make-up, of course; but it doesn't really "do" anything for me personally (nor does fingernail or toenail painting).

Oddly enough perhaps: I find that make-up only "covers up" God's perfection, even in a manner that clothes cannot.

We are not wired evolutionarily to seek inner peace in sex. We are wired to seeks sex...

I disagree. Maybe not for the purposes of basic physical evolution--as in being able to swim and climb out of primordial ooze; and then to be able to pass that ability on to subsequent generations--but perhaps still, in some type of psychological evolutionary sense.

...Our sexual behavior is not always the the best thing for us. It sometimes works against us and destroy the inner peace we may have had...

Too true.

 

[turbo]

Not a *real* man.

This *real* man actually washes dishes, does laundry, sweeps the floor, tends the garden, and does all of the canning and preserving of the vegetables, in addition to splitting and stacking wood, yard-work, etc. Edit: I should mention that I do a LOT of the cooking around here.

 

[Evo]

I actually find images of beautiful women more eye-catching than images of men... like most beautiful women look beautiful to me, but supposedly good looking male models... well, a lot of them just don't do it for me. hot women look hot... but hot men... well, I would need to get to know them first!

I would agree.

 

[DanP]

This *real* man actually washes dishes, does laundry, sweeps the floor, tends the garden, and does all of the canning and preserving of the vegetables, in addition to splitting and stacking wood, yard-work, etc. Edit: I should mention that I do a LOT of the cooking around here.

You forgot: plan an invasion, change a diaper, conn a ship, comfort the dieing ... Heinlein was up to something . Yet in the end we are beings with limited intellectual capacity and at the top of a field you become pretty much unidirectional.

Still cooking , changing diapers , handiwork and master of several important tools, home repairs, basic gun use are in the reach of all of us.

And I promise to anyone , cooking or washing dishes won't lower your freaking testosterone levels.

 

[DanP]

Yet, even still, was his point: that we (in western religions at least) have essentially transposed that notion of "Mother Goddess" unto Mary, "The Mother of GOD." Which, if you are Catholic, has a lot of personal significance.

Ok, I understand , but what is the fact ? We did put 1 women to status of divinity while we
robed all the others from most of their civil rights. What is this supposed to mean ? Is this supposed to be some kind of math I don't understand ? 1 Women raised in myth, billions oppressed for millenniums. It doesn't add up to me to anything even remotely close to a "innate need" for enthroning women. Myabe I am just blind, but I can not see how can we have this desire innate, and at the same time do what we did as a society.

I disagree. Maybe not for the purposes of basic physical evolution--as in being able to swim and climb out of primordial ooze; and then to be able to pass that ability on to subsequent generations--but perhaps still, in some type of psychological evolutionary sense.

Care to develop a bit on this Francis please ? I am not sure I get what you want to say.

 

[turbo]

You forgot: plan an invasion, change a diaper, conn a ship, comfort the dieing ... Heinlein was up to something . Yet in the end we are beings with limited intellectual capacity and at the top of a field you become pretty much unidirectional.

Still cooking , changing diapers , handiwork and master of several important tools, home repairs, basic gun use are in the reach of all of us.

And I promise to anyone , cooking or washing dishes won't lower your freaking testosterone levels.

Well, I am deadly with a Glock or a deer-rifle. I can build furniture and repair internal combustion engines, too, and I love using my tractor to do landscaping and build new gardening spots and move bulk materials. I really do like cooking, though. I don't like doing dishes or laundry, but they are things that have to be done.

 

[DanP]

Well, I am deadly with a Glock or a deer-rifle. I can build furniture and repair internal combustion engines, too, and I love using my tractor to do landscaping and build new gardening spots and move bulk materials. I really do like cooking, though. I don't like doing dishes or laundry, but they are things that have to be done.

Well, that's part of what make you one of the cool persons on this board. Ill drink a beer to men like you.

 

[turbo]

Well, that's part of what make you one of the cool persons on this board. Ill drink a beer to men like you.

I can't let you drink alone, so I'll pop a Molson Golden to keep you company.

 

[FrancisZ]

Ok, I understand , but what is the fact ? We did put 1 women to status of divinity while we robed all the others from most of their civil rights.

Never intended to deny that Dan. And I certainly hope you didn't think I meant that.

What is this supposed to mean ? Is this supposed to be some kind of math I don't understand ? 1 Women raised in myth, billions oppressed for millenniums. It doesn't add up to me to anything even remotely close to a "innate need" for enthroning women. Myabe I am just blind, but I can not see how can we have this desire innate, and at the same time do what we did as a society.

I don't pretend to know. Perhaps then there really are more odious, resentful men in the world--men with serious superiority complexes--than there are the "innate" worshipers among us.

Care to develop a bit on this Francis please ? I am not sure I get what you want to say.

I thought maybe you were implying that sexuality for the sake of emotional comfort (and possibly: brain evolution) was not it's purpose at all. I'm a little hokey maybe: but I envision it--that is: in addition to biological factors--as something that can also potentially induce (long term) intellectual evolution.

Who knows what is in the mind of two mating alley cats. Still I suspect that we as a species have developed something much more wonderful than cat sex (and what I understand: it's actually pretty awful for the femae cat).

It isn't simply for the purpose of propagating the species anymore. We possesses the ability to empathize; and there is something deep within us that is truly fulfilled by union (they call it mating of souls). It is even more psychological than it is physical for humans--in a good relationship anyway.

 

[DanP]

Perhaps then there really are more odious, resentful men in the world--men with serious superiority complexes--than there are the "innate" worshipers among us.

Why would you worship your equal ? You worship deities if you have faith, not humans. Men and women, Francis, are just humans. Hominidae-Homininae-Hominini-Homo. Genetically cousins to chimps. Currently the apex predator on Earth and the biggest threath to the members of his own species. A wonderful creature.

I think "man with superiority complexes" - "innate worshipers" is blatantly false dichotomy.

Superiority complexes are not always bad. They are one of the possible tools through which the human self is maintained. Haven't you observed, empirically at least, that humans with more narcissistic personality tend to be happier ? Some of our biases, are really really useful to us.

I thought maybe you were implying that sexuality for the sake of emotional comfort (and possibly: brain evolution) was not it's purpose at all. I'm a little hokey maybe: but I envision it--that is: in addition to biological factors--as something that can also potentially induce (long term) intellectual evolution.

Sure, sex in sexual reproductive organisms is a prerequisite to evolution. If you posses genes which are making for a superior intellect, with no reproduction, there is no possibility to change the frequency of the alleles in a population. But that's all.

It isn't simply for the purpose of propagating the species anymore. We possesses the ability to empathize; and there is something deep within us that is truly fulfilled by union (they call it mating of souls). It is even more psychological than it is physical for humans--in a good relationship anyway.

There is no soul. No ghost in the machine. I seen no evidence of such thing, and nobody else did as far as I know. Sure, sex is rewarding. It is supposed to be. A proximate mechanism ensuring that you actually seek sex and genes are replicated. Sure, sex enhances the bounds between two humans. The levels of oxtyocin are never higher in the brain of a man then following an ejaculation. A more parsimonious explanation would be that this mechanism is there to ensure survival of the offspring as a ultimate cause, proximately realized through increased bonding. Perhaps, is just a your biology playing some very clever tricks on you.

And lastly, let's do not forget that what makes a intimate relation a good one is way more than sex. Evolution, neurobiology , rearing environment, social exchanges, learned behaviors, the environment in which the actual intimate relationship takes place are all meaningful in making or breaking an intimate relationship. Interconnected in very interesting ways.

But to be fair, I've heard man saying that "you can't just make sex with a women if you don't have a (higer?) connection with her". Thy where extremely few and far between, and most of them didn't got too much sex anyway. Too concerned with "higher connections". Served them nothing but frustration.

 

[DaveC426913]

I always figured men like to look at women more than women like to look at men for a very simple reason.

On average, and all else being equal, men's attraction to women has a relatively larger visual and visceral component. What women tend to find attactive is less the physical skin-deep and more the internal personality-type traits - traits not forthcoming in a magazine photo Simiarly, men cannot divine easily what they find attractive in a woman by reading about her in a romance novel.

Please, don't everyone jump on this with specific examples about how women can find men physically attractive, and that men like women with great personalities - I'm saying statistically there's a tendency, all other things being equal.

 

[lisab]

I always figured men like to look at women more than women like to look at men for a very simple reason.

On average, and all else being equal, men's attraction to women has a relatively larger visual and visceral component. What women tend to find attactive is less the physical skin-deep and more the internal personality-type traits - traits you cannot divine from a magazine photo.

Please, don't everyone jump on this with specific examples about how women can find men physically attractive, and that men like women with great personalities - I'm saying statistically there's a tendency, all other things being equal.

Yes I think so too. I'd even say, based solely on my own experiences, that the difference is overwhelmingly obvious...no need for statistics to notice it, haha.

As far as the OP's question, Why do guys like pictures more, I'd say because men and women are simply wired differently. Thankfully .

 

[Vanadium 50]

I always figured men like to look at women more than women like to look at men for a very simple reason.

because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day?

(with apologies to Dave Barry)

 

[DaveC426913]

because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day?

Also that.

 

[Pengwuino]

because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day?

(with apologies to Dave Barry)

Or as Elaine from Seinfeld would say, the male body is utilitarian - it's like a Jeep.

 

[DanP]

Yes I think so too. I'd even say, based solely on my own experiences, that the difference is overwhelmingly obvious...no need for statistics to notice it, haha.

Gonna ask you something. You walk on a street, bar, gym , whatever. You see a man. One of you opens a conversation. 2 minutes.

What makes you interested in him enough to want to see him a second time ? Discover more about him ? In a word, what makes you want discover his personality ?

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes I think so too. I'd even say, based solely on my own experiences, that the difference is overwhelmingly obvious...no need for statistics to notice it, haha.

As far as the OP's question, Why do guys like pictures more, I'd say because men and women are simply wired differently. Thankfully .

You should bring this question up at the fair this year while we are camping. It will be fun to listen to a bunch of geriatric types try and answer this question.

Unfortunately, there is no type of service(wi-fi nor phone) where we will be, so be prepared with lots of Venn diagrams.

 

[DanP]

What women tend to find attactive is less the physical skin-deep and more the internal personality-type traits - traits not forthcoming in a magazine photo Simiarly, men cannot divine easily what they find attractive in a woman by reading about her in a romance novel.

.

However, interesting enough is that studies at university of Minessota on young humans concluded that the most important predictor of getting a second date is physical attraction for both man and women.

Then there is a plethora of other interesting studies, one was very cool and ingenious IMO.

The sweaty T-shirt study in which females where given T-shirts used by males for 3 days. The T-shirts where mapped to the facial symmetry of the man who used them.

Some females where on ovulation, some not. All where given the T-shirts and asked to smell them and tell who they would find attractive for dating. Interestingly enough, the females on the peak of fertility choose T-shirts which corresponded to men with high facial symmetry. Facial symmetry is considered one of the cues for good genes, and one of the components of what we consider an attractive human.
Why would females evolve such a mechanism of detection, if not interested in the cues of good genetics ?

Why some studies show a change in the preference of females in what man they find physically attractive visually whatever or not they are on contraceptive pills ? Why do preference preferences in women who are not on the pill change during the course of the cycle ? It seems that man with powerful masculine facial traits are more likely to be chosen as partners at the peak of fertility, while in the rest of time preference seem to lean toward man with less pronounced masculine features.

Why is there so extremely rare to find a female which choose to mate with a guy which is shorter in height than her ? Universally across cultures, females will statistically go for man taller them themselves.

Why some studies show that male faces which are rated as highly "trust-able" are scored in attractiveness by the same female low ?

And then you have the cuckoos, females which will marry one man, and they will simply mate to create an offspring with another man, hiding the truth of paternity from their husbands. The incidence of this phenomena is not as low as to call it negligible or bad luck.

 

[FrancisZ]

Whether it's just men that enjoy looking or not, the one serious character flaw to always be wary of: pedo-bubble behavior...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ONVUdYjDwM

 

[lisab]

Gonna ask you something. You walk on a street, bar, gym , whatever. You see a man. One of you opens a conversation. 2 minutes.

What makes you interested in him enough to want to see him a second time ? Discover more about him ? In a word, what makes you want discover his personality ?

I like bold. If it's the guy who starts the conversation, he starts off with bonus points because that takes guts. Bold, but not arrogant.

Humor is *very* important...critical, in fact. But not mean humor, of course - I hate bullies.

Those two are the big ones for a first conversation.

 

[DanP]

I like bold. If it's the guy who starts the conversation, he starts off with bonus points because that takes guts. Bold, but not arrogant.

Humor is *very* important...critical, in fact. But not mean humor, of course - I hate bullies.

Those two are the big ones for a first conversation.

No physical evaluation at all ? And I want to be very clear here, I do not ask see him other times as a friend, but as a possible romantic partner.

 

[lisab]

No physical evaluation at all ? And I want to be very clear here, I do not ask see him other times as a friend, but as a possible romantic partner.

Ah. Ok, clean is a big one - I think my nose is more sensitive than average. It would be nice if the guy is at least as fit as I am. And a little taller than me but not too tall (I'm pretty short). I'm not a fan of beards or long hair.

But actually none of those are required (well, no facial hair comes close - yes I know it's illogical but since when does physical attraction follow logic?). A wicked fast wit will make up for a *lot*.

But none of the physical traits by themselves will make me get to know a guy. In other words, I never just look at a guy and think, I'd like to know more about him. I'm just not wired that way.

I will say, there are physical traits that I see and think, I don't want to get to know him.

 

[rootX]

I go when I see girls with tattoos or nose/lips piercings.

So, I think it depends what kind of girl picture it is. Neither I would find skinny or fashion padded women attractive.

 

[DanP]

It would be nice if the guy is at least as fit as I am.

Good instincts. IMO soon, fit will be the new sexy :P (OK, research seem to say that fit was always sexy ). What do you think, can be such a preference evolved, or you consider it more as a part of social interaction ? I.E, since you exercise and make an effort to look good, be fit and healthy you just want someone with the same respect for himself ?

I will say, there are physical traits that I see and think, I don't want to get to know him.

Interesting way to put it. Physical repulsion. I really like how you put this one, Lisa.

 

[jannkahon]

Maybe guys are more curious than women. We tend to clarify and understand the photo.

 

[DanP]

I go when I see girls with tattoos or nose/lips piercings.

Tatoos, I don't mind, as long as they do satisfy my artistic taste. If they do not , it's kinda the same effect as when I see a women dressed in what i consider horrific clothes. Facial and chest ones are a turn off. Interestingly enough I do not mind piercings down there between her legs.

 

[jannkahon]

I go when I see girls with tattoos or nose/lips piercings.

So, I think it depends what kind of girl picture it is. Neither I would find skinny or fashion padded women attractive.

I agree with this, for me tattoos make a girls looks dirty. Being clean looks attractive.

 

[lisab]

Good instincts. IMO soon, fit will be the new sexy :P (OK, research seem to say that fit was always sexy ). What do you think, can be such a preference evolved, or you consider it more as a part of social interaction ? I.E, since you exercise and make an effort to look good, be fit and healthy you just want someone with the same respect for himself ?

Yes, respect and discipline. Ambition, even.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not a fan of beards...

: ruefully scratches lisab off his 'freebie five' list :

 

[lisab]

: ruefully scratches lisab off his 'freebie five' list :

There's an actual reason: I have sensitive skin...rough hair is sooo painful!

 

[Frankly]

I don't think men look at images more than women. Women look at other women, and images of women more than men do. They also look at them differently than men do. While its true that there's a ridiculous amount of male targeted porn/semi-porn out there, your average male has no need to, and doesnt, spend a lot of time looking at the images in order to uh, conclude his business. Women on the other hand will spend more time on each image of a woman(fashion, fitness related), and spend more time overall in their day looking at and evaluating other women.

I also think the male brain receives a female image as a collection of sexual objects (breasts, legs, butts, etc). I think the female brain processes the image more as a whole, and not so much as an assortment of body parts of varying degrees of interest.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's an actual reason: I have sensitive skin...rough hair is sooo painful!

Ah, but soft luxurius facial hair means no stubble burns on your sensitive bits!

 

[lisab]

Ah, but soft luxurius facial hair means no stubble burns on your sensitive bits!

Hey who brought bits into this thread?!

 

[jamesroy]

The answer to this is biological. Among all forms of life, including humans, male is a poor performer, as far as sexual performance goes. A male of any species is generally never ill treated by females except for a short while after mating, which could be a reaction to the poor performance of the male, perhaps much below expectations. This 'ill treatment', shall be that after a sexual encounter, 'the female eats up the male partner' as in the case of certain spider, or some other posture, all violent.
When it comes to man, knowing well that a great agony is certain to befall on all men if sexual encounters are to proceed naturally, our forefathers devised various methods to reduce the possibilities of sexual encounter. Thus, we have sexual union prohibited on many grounds, of age, caste, relation etc. Looking at pictures and deriving pleasure thereby is one such way to escape from 'performance'.
As females are free from this performance anxiety, they have no such need.

 

[SamirS]

I think some kind of answer can be found in the following idea: rock stars or celebrities.

Think females: how many males do you see running after them, I mean really being groupie and stuff, raising their star to divine heights? Very few. If so, it's far and apart and most of those are called stalkers.

Then think of a male rock star and his female following and his groupies and everything. Or "Take That", where girls and women actually killed themselves or had emotional breakdowns.

Does it perhaps mean that women need something to emotionally attach to, and are willing to pay the price for that (a groupie having sex with her star), and men actually do objectify women in purely sexual matters, which can be expressed by the willingness of males to almost instantly have sex with an adequately attractive woman?

Or said differently, as satisfying as sex may be for both genders, that women view it more as a road to affection, attention and support (while enjoying it still!), while for men, it IS the actual target.

Said differently again, this could correspond to the evolutionary psychology idea that women need to bind a partner because pregnancy and raising children is a high investment while men need to spread their genes as much as possible with little regard for the target.

Conversely, there are much more physically rather unattractive guys (who are funny, witty, rich, or whatever) with quite attractive girls. The opposite rarely holds.

 

[DanP]

Said differently again, this could correspond to the evolutionary psychology idea that women need to bind a partner because pregnancy and raising children is a high investment while men need to spread their genes as much as possible with little regard for the target.

The actual prediction is that women will be much more discriminate than men in choosing a mate. Her investment is huge. Loose of fertility during pregnancy. The offspring will die if it's not taken care.

Men would be rather indiscriminate, their investment is minimal, they are better off with just being indiscriminate and impregnate as many females as possible.

 

[SamirS]

The actual prediction is that women will be much more discriminate than men in choosing a mate. Her investment is huge. Loose of fertility during pregnancy. The offspring will die if it's not taken care.

Men would be rather indiscriminate, their investment is minimal, they are better off with just being indiscriminate and impregnate as many females as possible.

Well, then we agree? I meant to say that the emotional attaching of a women to a rockstar and the lack of the same for males (speaking in general) is a "misfiring" if you will. Men think of Megan Fox as a hot babe, while women seem to ascribe much more to their target of affection.

 

[Phrak]

Men appraise women for their physical fitness as much as women appraise men for the power in providing material. However, these should not be considered exclusive appraisals but dominant.

In this way, it is important for women to be atuned to the current perceptions of physical fitness often displayed as images of other women. And so women are as equally attracted to images of women as are me, but for different reasons. It is men who set these standards, and women who compare and take means to elevate themselves within these standards.

Equally, it is important for men to be atuned to the current perceptions of what constitues powerful men. These perceptions do not as often appear as images, but as oral and written messages.

I believe this is tracable to the sexual imbalance, DanP in #48 presented.