Unless you're a gay male, in general adult males look like apes and adult females look like angels. (Both, of course, too often act like chimpanzee asshats.) Cue the ecumenical iconography of angelic androgyny or feminine ideals. Anyway, just a guess. Count me too among those utterly devoted to this curséd, libidinal fetish – 'Her every line, curve & movement choreographs my desire.'

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.

in general adult males look like apes and adult females look like angels — 180 Proof

: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.

:up:

A lot of male casualties have been reported while trying to negotiate the curves of the female form. — TheMadFool

I must be a revenant several times over. :broken:

I must be a revenant several times over. :broken: — 180 Proof

Welcome to the ♧!

why female bodies are considered more coveted. — Maximum7

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.

Women (curves) & Men (straight lines)

Unless you're a gay male, in general adult males look like apes and adult females look like angels. — 180 Proof

Gay male here - in general adult males look like apes and adult females look pretty decent and some are quite stunning.

I'm actually quite interested in this. Binged a ton of Pedro Almodovar recently and he is OBSESSED with women's bodies, to the extent that, if this was the 90s and Pedro was straight, we might expect a review to say something like "his camera makes love to them". As a raving heterosexual with mostly like-minded friends, this divorce between gendered sensuality and gendered sexuality is slightly mysterious to me.

The typical hourglass shape coveted by men is a sign of good reproductive health; wider hips allow childbirth to be easier, for example. — Pinprick

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.

As a raving heterosexual with mostly like-minded friends, this divorce between gendered sensuality and gendered sexuality is slightly mysterious to me. — Kenosha Kid

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:

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.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.048.than.html

He then goes on to explain how femininity/masculinity are transcended.

Clearly, you don't have enough female friends/don't spend enough time with them. — baker

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*

know men were dominant in ancient times but I never got the reason why female bodies are considered more coveted. — Maximum7

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'm saying that the gender differentiation in sensuality biased toward the female form isn't nearly as pronounced as you claim it is. — baker

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?

I'm actually quite interested in this. Binged a ton of Pedro Almodovar recently and he is OBSESSED with women's bodies, to the extent that, if this was the 90s and Pedro was straight, we might expect a review to say something like "his camera makes love to them". As a raving heterosexual with mostly like-minded friends, this divorce between gendered sensuality and gendered sexuality is slightly mysterious to me. — Kenosha Kid

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.

Ah, why do I bother.

Thanks K. I'm probably not best placed to understand that: as my partner was saying just this morning, it's taken me decades just to start running a comb through my hair. My body image problem is shocking myopia; I'm very much the ape end of the spectrum. But heterosexual men are increasingly less ape-tastic in this respect. If what you say is more general, I wonder if we'll see a more prominent sensualisation of men as a result, likewise divorced from sexuality. It's very post-.

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:

Because hairy hanging gonads aren't attractive to anyone. — Hanover

Ah, why do I bother. — 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.

It makes sense that men are more easily aroused with respect to gamete asymmetry and the cost of resources involved. Males are not burdened with carrying to term which gives them incredible leverage/power between sexes. Easier arousal plays a role in competition for the fairer sex.

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.

By "apes" I wasn't talking about anything relating to body hair. — K Turner

Nor was I. My example was:

as my partner was saying just this morning, it's taken me decades just to start running a comb through my hair. — Kenosha Kid

which was more about self-image generally.

Men usually don't go out of their way to be warm or inviting or dress pretty like women do. — 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.

It makes sense that men are more easily aroused with respect to gamete asymmetry and the cost of resources involved. Males are not burdened with carrying to term which gives them incredible leverage/power between sexes. Easier arousal plays a role in competition for the fairer sex.

The drive to impregnate is on average stronger than the drive to be impregnated. — Nils Loc

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 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. — Maximum7

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?

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. — 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!

A woman in a bikini always elicits a strong response from men and even non-gay women as well. — Maximum7

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’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). — Possibility

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.

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. — 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.

Why is this so? Who decided the female form was more alluring than the male? — Maximum7

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.