Other things being equal, both sexes and variations on the theme, like symmetrical, healthy looking, fertile looking, youngish fit-ish, etc. And those things being equal, both sexes tend to prefer well filled wallets and bank accounts to maxed out credit-cards, and well paid professionals to poor, unskilled and unemployed.

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...

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. — Apollodorus

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.

I just hope that if there is an afterlife that we have genders even without procreation. So the virtues we bestow on the sexes mean something and women are everything lovely even without a need.

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... — unenlightened

(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:

(Over)generalization — 180 Proof

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

Mmm. Hence "You never notice what I'm wearing" being a common complaint of wives and girlfriends. People tend to know people much like themselves: I probably am more likely to know men who aren't very interested in fashion (since I'm not); you're probably more likely to know men who are (since you are), giving one or both of us a skewed perspective. In my perspective, the fewer clothes the better, and that is extremely tied to sexuality. Also in my perspective, gushing over women's clothes is, in the words of the great Derren Brown, "mostly for women and gays". But I would buy that that's changing. As men become more obsessed with their appearance, it would make sense that they become more critical and admiring of the appearance of others. I don't think this is a particularly good thing tbh, although it might be something of an equaliser.

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

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.

when your legs are pinned behind your head and his deep testosterone-heavy voice is whispering sweet nothings in your ear. — Cobra

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.

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. — Apollodorus

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.

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. — Apollodorus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I probably am more likely to know men who aren't very interested in fashion (since I'm not); you're probably more likely to know men who are (since you are), — 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.

Also in my perspective, gushing over women's clothes is, in the words of the great Derren Brown, "mostly for women and gays". But I would buy that that's changing. — 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.

As men become more obsessed with their appearance, it would make sense that they become more critical and admiring of the appearance of others. I don't think this is a particularly good thing tbh, although it might be something of an equaliser. — 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.

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. — 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.

I said it is unnecessary, a waste of time, and I doubt that it works. — 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.

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. — Cobra

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.

we appear to be making a lot of assumptions here — Possibility

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:

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." — K Turner

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:

The female body is not 'attractive' to other women except in the minds of men that project their sexualities onto women — Cobra

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.

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. — 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:

I really need to get back into the habit of reading the last line of the post first as it might save me a bit of time but such is life.

Men vote Trump and women vote Biden, and the wall goes up until next till next time — 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.

You are being factious right? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"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.

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". — Apollodorus

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.

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.

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.

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? — 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.

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 extreme differentiation in kind.

Establishing effective communication is easy and being done by everyone without a listening problem. — Cobra

BOOM. :100:

(I'm usually more articulate ...)

then how do you establish communication in any meaningful way, in the first place? — Apollodorus

Rather, the question is, do people even want to communicate?

Beckett didn't think so. Every other day I disagree.

It doesn't matter. There is nothing attractive to me about the female form. — Cobra

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.

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. — 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.

Establishing effective communication is easy and being done by everyone without a listening problem. — 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.

Rather, the question is, do people even want to communicate? — baker

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.

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.

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.

Heterofemalegaze? Um, yeah, my chubby approves. :cool:

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.

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. — 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.

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. — Cobra

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 find this a very interesting account of the younger female perspective. I don’t want to discount the points you’ve made here - I think this provides a very clear example which follows from younger girls who find, in these singers we’ve been discussing, an alluring expression of their inner experience.

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.

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. — K Turner

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.

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. — 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.