Men being targeted with sexual visual imagery trains men to be responsive. It is not an inherent trait. Women recieve virtually none of the same sexualizing stimuli of male bodies, but still manage to respond to visuals. All of this is also happening in a larger context of culture encouraging male sexuality to the exclusion of other states, while muffling and minimizing female sexuality.
Try magnifying mirrors.
At the charity haunt were I work, we’ve got quite a few visually impaired and/or older volunteers, and we all use them as aid alongside the standard lit mirror.
It’s easier to do makeup on yourself than others - my technique is placing two magnifying mirrors of differing strength (5x and 10x) on the table in front of the regular mirrors, and work between the three.
I think we’ll just have to disagree on that one. It implies a conspiracy of some sort. Having been a boy and raised one, there are things that are innate, and this is one of them. It’s like saying dangling a string in front of a cat trains them to attack string. Cats just really like string. Even the smallest of kittens.(we’re currently fostering kittens)
No, it doesn’t, anymore than learning a language or a set of mannerisms does.[quote=“gellfex, post:83, topic:101899”]
Having been a boy and raised one, there are things that are innate, and this is one of them.
Being exposed to sexualized female bodies and cultural socialization from birth is not biology. Note that all cats attack string, not just males or females, cats. Just like all humans like sexual stimulation.
You should post kitten pics in the pets thread.
We literally just discussed this it TWO whole other threads LOL
Men are from mars women are from venus is reductionist BS. Paging @Humbabella you countered this so well in the last thread. Want a second go?
@katherinelives query… if these traits are innate then why do some cultures not fetishize breasts in the same way western cultures do? Im thinking of the Himba of Namibia. They have very different ideas of beauty and esthetics. But if stuff is innate they should be the same as ours right?
##It never ends; lather, rinse and fucking repeat.
No matter how many women offer their input from their respective fields of interest and insights from their own life-long experiences, there will always be some dude, somewhere with his fingers in his ears, hollering:
“Nuh-uh! I know better than you… because reasons!”
It isn’t “weapons-grade femininity” – it is “weapons-grade humanity”. I have been the recipient of weapons-grade male eyelashes and other equally self-aware behavior on the part of men in an effort to induce certain behavior in me. FFS, the entire PUA is predicated on influencing female reaction.
Yeah - what we find visually attractive is culturally programmed and reinforced. In psychology, we know pretty specifically what kinds of faces that babies find it easy to look at (i.e., be appropriately aroused by rather than over or under aroused) and it’s what you’d expect: open eyes, smiling mouth. This remains consistent across cultures.
From a biopsychosocial perspective, we can guess at the origins of attraction, but we don’t really know the etiology of such things - we do know that it changes over lifespan and if people change their cultural milieu. Pansexual/bisexual women report preferring sexually dimorphic partners (manly men & femme women) at higher rates than heterosexual women - but this research is limited. Heterosexual men’s preferences are rarely explored outside of the assumed current milieu - it’s considered “settled science” when, in fact, there is a small, very dated body of research that addresses heterosexual male sexuality. Gay male sexuality has a significant body of research to explore and it tells us that gay men have highly diverse preferences for partners. It’s almost as if they lack a cultural image to compare their preferences to… Although more recent research suggests that as LGBTQ people are gaining acceptance and media representation, this is shifting.
The most consistently reported cross-cultural measure of physical attractiveness in women is hip/waist ratio and in men shoulder/waist ratio, though more current and culturally inclusive research is less definite in this regard.
But as you say, they do have ideas of beauty and esthetics even as it’s obvious there are no universal ones. Presumably the male Himbas will have an opinion on the relative attractiveness of the women of tribe. Its the looking that I say is innate, not what they’re looking for.
A Mad Magazine strip I read as a lad made a big impression. One kid is going off on how if women covered their noses there would be a whole fetish about noses, and the other kid jumps up and says “hey look at that girl with the band-aid on her nose, isn’t she sexy???” The point is the standards may change but the roving eyes of the boys do not.
The fact that their tastes are eclectic doesn’t mean they don’t have them. My gay friends and co-workers are VERY visual. You should see what they have posted up around their worktables, never mind in the bathroom!
I’m thinking here of Madeline Kahn in “Blazing Saddles” where she sings “I’m tired”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uai7M4RpoLU
That’s how I feel about explaining and discussing and offering sincere viewpoints.
Same. I will gladly respond to the people on these boards who have shown themselves interested in engaging in ideas, but the list of members who post just to play sad internet one-up-manship is getting loooooooooong.
You just made my day with that reference.
I loved Madeline Kahn (RIP) and Blazing Saddles.
And yeah, I’m also utterly tired of having minutely different versions of this same conversation, ad nauseum.
It’s depressing, honestly. This is one of the few safe spaces where I can interact with all sorts of people on the gender spectrum, and then I find a thread about weaponized femininity. Like you, I want genuine discourse about gender issues. But we keep covering the same ground until our ruts are as deep as the tracks through the stone on the Oregon Trail.
Though rare, it can happen; as long as all the participants involved have an actual vested interest in intellectual discourse instead of just wanting to ‘win’ a proverbial pissing contest.
Perhaps it shouldn’t have been made into a separate thread.
Yeah, fuck you dead horse…
For the most part, I think our Gendered Objectification thread, Gendered objectification, achieved this (counting at 543 replies), so you’re right! Some depression lifted.
That made me do a spit take. But seriously, I keep responding because clearly I can’t help myself. Until this dead horse refuses to be a zombie, I know myself – I’ll continue to engage. The women’s right to vote movement began in the 1840s and as we know, it wasn’t ratified until 1920. My diminutive contribution in a small corner of the Internet pales, but here I am.
Looking is innate to humans. The difference is that one group is encouraged to look, while another group is looked at, and simultaneously told to display and cover, then shamed for looking.
Agreed, and though that is a dead horse it still needs a couple of licks; because splitting it was not a very wise decision in retrospect.