What women/men want

Terrance, thanks for your views.

Like I said: study primitive societies that are without our hangups about sexuality and observe how little problem it is for both men and women.

Men and women in this society are subject to a ton of conditioning by the people who wish to exploit sexuality for their own reasons. This conditioning is a BIG part of the problem that you and TW seem to have with your sexuality. Sorry to be so blunt but it's all Pavlov in practice...with men being the dogs.

The only other reason men would have such a huge problem with controlling their drives is that they are those rare folks with extra male chromosomes in their physical makeup. For these unfortunates, it can really be a problem.

Sandi Bowman

Sandi

First, the reason most other primitive societies do not have the hang ups like we do isn't because of the men ....it is the conditioning of modern females that has caused the issues.

The thing that effects me and about every other male on the planet could be some conditioning to a small point...but there is MUCH MORE biological evidence also.

The male sex drive makes us do things in a very simple (non-complex way)
Females are the ones where it is virtually impossible to understand because everything is complicated to quantify.

I want you to check this link out to describe exactly what I mean from a SCIENTIFIC point of view

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/se...-women-compare



Terrance

Well, I went to the thread. Didn't learn anything new. That is very old 'news' and most of it has been disproven. You or anyone else will read into what they wish to so I can't really comment any further on it. There were no 'controls', no scientific criteria established, and the questions were improperly phrased for a true research process. They never did state a hypothesis to prove or disprove.

Thanks for the input folks. Looks like I have more urgent things to take care of now since hubby is not well. Gotta run...

Sandi Bowman

Sandi

Now Sandi....you know you cannot leave yet...

Now you asked the question.....why?
This is why TW replied that it would not work because
most people cannot handle the results and therefore just brush it off.

Now I just provided you a link to some reseach done by scientists that relates to this sort of thing on men/women behavior and motivations
and you blew it off....

Terrance

Here's the struggle/INNER dialog (that men go through -- and I think women do NOT go through this same struggle)...

The 'problem' of 'the visual'... "If you look like [certain body shape], I want to **** you, RIGHT NOW."

A large part of a man's brain produces NOTHING but that ONE simple mantra -- and there's nothing he can do about it.

Again -- here it is... "If you look like [certain body shape], I want to **** you, RIGHT NOW."

Then comes... The problem of guilt... "If something as TRIVIAL and SUPERFICIAL as that (how a woman LOOKS (only)) is as powerful and important to me (in ways I can't control or understand), then I must be a complete CAD!"

This is NOT the same as a Harlequin novel (if it WERE the same, men would read Harlequin novels -- and they DON'T!). A romance novel eventaully reaches the same 'conclusion,' but the PATH it takes to get there is very, very different. One difference is... THERE IS A PATH! Thousands of words are taken up as the PATH.

Again, I have just given you the "path" that takes place in men's minds -- here (again) is the complete "path"...

"If you look like [certain body shape], I want to **** you, RIGHT NOW."

You have just learned the *complete* "path" men have in their minds. You may notice a lack of nuance or romance -- or even words.

Yes, in terms of sexuality, men are no more complicated than this...

"If you look like [certain body shape], I want to **** you, RIGHT NOW."

Now, LOVE is more complicated than that -- for men too.

But sex? Nope. For men, sexual attraction can reliably be summed up as...

"If you look like [certain body shape], I want to **** you, RIGHT NOW."

And no, I do not believe women must struggle with this same inner dialog every second of the day, as men do.

The difference is the SIMPLICITY + the VISUAL aspect.

That's why **** appeals to men + not to women (generally).

**** is simple + visual -- and it fits in with the simple inner mantra...

"If you look like [certain body shape], I want to **** you, RIGHT NOW."

PS: the flip side of that is... "If you do NOT look like [certain body shape], I do NOT want to [etc.]" I had this discussion with a friend (female) who has two teenage daughters who are overweight. She was trying to tell them weight doesn't really matter -- it's what's inside that counts, blah, blah, blah.
I told her she was lying to her daughters, and I was sure they KNEW it. Women who do not fit into our society's VERY NARROW idea of what the 'proper' body shape is (to be sexually attractive) ARE at a disadvantage (in terms of being sexually attractive to men). That's just the truth. Men *DO* objectify women -- the visual *IS* of utmost importance to them. THAT'S the point of that info product. The point is, "Your husband's NOT a pervert." (not YOUR husband, Sandi -- I mean that radio guy's point is wives (in general) shouldn't think of their husbands as being 'perverts' because they thrive on VISUAL (only) attraction -- such as ****, women passing on the street, etc.

Now, you say, well that's all CULTURALLY INDUCED. To which I say -- YES! It is all culturally induced! -- So is using a knife + fork to eat, using toilet paper, and eating cows instead of dogs. What is considered sexually attractive is ***ALWAYS*** culturally induced!!! In the 60's M. Monroe was a sex symbol -- today she would be considered a 'fat chick.'

Originally Posted by Bozo

You can't know the depths from the shallow end of the pool. You're only looking at one aspect of the human critter, being sex.

Umm -- yes, that's the whole (+ only) point of this thread. That's why I keep saying, "ON THIS TOPIC." Meaning sex, sexy, + what's considered sexually attractive.

[Dien Rice]

Originally Posted by -TW

Not that far apart?

Ummm, let's look at the **** industry (aka the supply/demand marketplace) + who 99.99999% of the customers are (male).

At the risk of being controversial, and "fanning the fire"...

I've heard the opinion that "bodice-ripper"-style romance novels are the "equivalent" of what you're talking about for women... Having never read one, and not being an expert in these things, I have no idea whether there is some truth to this, or whether it is way off the mark!

- Dien

The difference is the importance of "visuals."

That's why I asked what the female 'winner' of the most sexy award looked like (in Sandi's example).

Her point was that what's 'sexy' is surprising, because it does not seem to contain 'the visuals,' as one would expect.

My counterpoint is that, when it comes to 'what men want,' the visuals ARE important!

When you say the bodice-rippers (romance novels) are the female equivalent to ****, I agree. The FEMALE equivalent. Men do not read those + women do not look at **** (generally). So, they may be 'equal' but they are not THE SAME.

Let's ask this question: Why does **** appeal to men and romance novels appeal to women (generally)?

What's the ***DIFFERENCE?***

Whatever your answer -- there IS a difference.

I'll leave it to everyone to decide the REASON for that difference -- but I don't see how one can deny that there IS a difference.

I think the difference is "the visuals." That's part of what that guy's info product addresses. Pardon the pun, but it cannot be overlooked!

-- TW

[Ankesh]

Originally Posted by -TW

Ummm, let's look at the **** industry (aka the supply/demand marketplace) + who 99.99999% of the customers are (male).

Why is that? I think it is BEGUN to be explained by that guy's info product.

I agree the madonna complex is not accurate. But the 'men are beasts' theory, pretty much IS (true).

Look at the number of people who apply lipstick. 99.99% are women. Does that mean that women have this innate drive to apply lipstick while men don't?

The answer is complicated.

Yes - women could have this ingrained notion of being more attractive - the peacock theory to win more attention - which makes them apply more lipstick. (But in other animals - its usually the male that strive for attention - so that is a conundrum I haven't gotten my mind around yet.)

On the other hand - you can see a clear hand of conditioning and societal expectations in play too. Women *start* applying lipstick because other women apply lipstick.

European men in 19th century used to wear elaborate wigs and apply makeup too. And then they stopped. What - suddenly their brain chemistry changed?

Tattoos have an about equal male to female ratio. But belly rings - majority are put up by women. That is not something ingrained or hardwired in the brains. Its a society affecting actions thing.

Its the same with **** and every other male-female difference.

* Yes - the brains are different.
* And Yes - the society we live in affects our actions too.

Last I heard... the biggest market for gay **** is.... women!

So maybe why 99.99% of other **** is bought by men is because folks are not making **** women like? Or women don't have this ritual of showing other women **** when they are 13-14-15?

There are a 101 such reasons why men buy more **** that has nothing to do with how our brains are wired differently.

Its nature-vs-nurture. Both nature and nurture play a hand on how we behave. But I always like to believe that nurture plays a bigger role - because we have direct control over it.

Nature -- nurture -- yes, it's some of both.

But when you say we have control over nurture, that's not quite right, imo.

Culture moves as culture moves. It evolves on its own, pretty much. It's not controllable. Evolution cannot be controlled, really. If you cut off the tail of each lab mouse that's born, that doesn't cause later mice to be born with no tails.

You cannot enter a native village and 'tell' the people having those tall rings around the necks of the women, are not 'sexy.'

As I said, what is considered the 'ideal' of sexual attractiveness is ALWAYS culturally induced, and almost NEVER has anything to do with what is 'normal,' average or even natural. It is a manifestation of the 'cultural norms.' These evolve on their own, at their own pace -- often inexplicably, and not based on 'reality.'

And when you say: Last I heard... the biggest market for gay **** is.... women! -- that still does nothing to compare the % of men who 'use' **** to the % of women who do.