Men
Jennie Kermode
that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
male bodies that's attractive? Personally I am sometimes attracted to
men despite their bodies, because of the way they present themselves, or
because of the ways in which they resemble women, but I've never been
attracted to maleness as such and I can't get my head around it. As a
writer it's something I feel I ought to understand. As usual, when faced
with a difficult question people might not answer honestly elsewhere, I
turn to alt.gothic.
My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires. What makes
a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed, so
are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
appeals to them? Can masculine-bodied men be appealing on a sensual
level the way women can, or is that just a device used by pornography
that doesn't much represent actual experienced desires? Some voices -
Genet for instance - express it in a way that seems genuine, but it's
hard to tell how typical they are.
There must be people here who are attracted to masculine men.
What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
much like to understand.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
Peter H. Coffin
> My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
> expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
> sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
> imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires.
It's rather a common problem for straight men, as well. I tend to think
that there's a a real attraction to various sorts and kinds of things in
individual women, but the talk is usually fabricated to comply with
whatever's fashionable in that person's social circle. Men seem to deal
with a more-rigorous necessity to comply, but less pressure to discuss
attraction. They don't even want to risk hearing that whatever they find
attractive isn't concurred with.
--
"HTML's a cheap whore. Treating her with respect is possible, and even
preferable, because once upon a time she was a beautiful and virginal
format, but you shouldn't expect too much of her at this point." --M"K"H
Katherine
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear
> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
> male bodies that's attractive? Personally I am sometimes attracted to
Actually, I don't get it either. Usually what attracts me is
something that is an expression of their personalities. I don't
become attracted to specific things about a guy's body until after
I've been with him for a while. Then it's not the shape of the part
so much as I know how he uses it: I'm attracted to strong arms because
of the way they feel holding me, etc. It's more of an emotional thing
(I think) and then it becomes sensual.
{Katherine}
Elder
"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk says...
> Personally I am sometimes attracted to
> men despite their bodies, because of the way they present themselves, or
> because of the ways in which they resemble women, but I've never been
> attracted to maleness as such and I can't get my head around it. As a
> writer it's something I feel I ought to understand. As usual, when faced
> with a difficult question people might not answer honestly elsewhere, I
> turn to alt.gothic.
>
>
physique, or a classically handsome face, or even sometimes, how the
look of innocence in someone looking youth could be seen as attractive.
But I can't see how anyone could find male genitalia attractive. I don't
even find my own attractive.
Although, in the feminine form, there is usually something that can be
found in almost anybody that can flick a spark. And I do mean almost. If
someone takes even the small ammount of care of themselves.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
TheOneBob
> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
> male bodies that's attractive?
No clue. I personally think we males are a bunch of ugly Neanderthals,
and I am extremely lucky if one of the Amazingly Beautiful Feminoids
decides that I am worthy.
But if you ask me what I like about women's bodies and I could go on
for quite some time.
Bob
The One
moonglow minnow
> There must be people here who are attracted to masculine men.
> What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
> much like to understand.
For me, the primary attraction to men is psychological. Aesthetically
I'd much prefer someone who appears somewhere in-between. I have similar
preferences for somewhere-in-between psychological profiles. But there
are some very masculine traits that I'm fond of just as much as certain
very feminine traits.
It's mostly tactile for me. The contrast of soft lips and coarse beard
on the back of a shoulder or the inner thigh. The twitching and
pulsating of a hard cock in hand or mouth or vagina especially at the
point of ejaculation. The contrast of softness and hardness that the
penis presents. The feel of rough callouses on sensitive nipples. The
security of nestling into a muscular shoulder and being surrounded by
muscular arms. The smell of fresh sweat with the hint of musk after a
good workout oo sex.
Going back and reading that one wouldn't guess that I've been virtually
asexual for the past two years.
Oh, and there's the appeal of them being able to lift heavy things and
reach tall shelves. ;)
Maeve >^..^<
--
http://moonglowminnow.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/
oonh
> imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires. What makes
> a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed, so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAwLYJYsa0A
> are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
rule 34 says that there must be.
> something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
> well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
> appeals to them? Can masculine-bodied men be appealing on a sensual
androstenone is annoying. and my nose is too low gain to do adequate
nasal spectroscopy on women (also, not enough sample size of late,
sadly)
> level the way women can, or is that just a device used by pornography
> that doesn't much represent actual experienced desires? Some voices -
> Genet for instance - express it in a way that seems genuine, but it's
> hard to tell how typical they are.
oonh
GryffnStryff
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear
> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
> male bodies that's attractive? Personally I am sometimes attracted to
This assumes one would be attracted to a male body. This would
require that you also ask other species such as sharks, bear, mountain
lions, etc., as they also seem to be attracted but probably for
reasons other than what you are after. If it is sexual attraction, I
can only assume it is a fetish thing that someone is attracted to
someone based on certain aspects of a male physique and what it
represents such as the ability to hunt for food (which may have become
genetically and hereditarily imprinted). Otherwise maybe it is not
the body, but rather the car or truck it drives, or the size of the
wad of cash it sits on. Perhaps it is the clothing that shows its
shape and the jewelry that adorns it. Perhaps it has something to do
with the personality of the person attracted to it or that of the one
who resides in that body. Maybe it's because there's a little green
man operating a thought machine on Mars, sending signals through a tin
foil antenna that makes someone think that such a thing is
attractive. I suppose there could be physiological reasons but I
suppose there's no need to go into explaining that. I suppose one
could just simply say that the mind works in mysterious ways, as do
neurons which most probably associate based on stimuli experienced in
the environment of the individual living in their different
circumstances. So, I suppose you could take a survey and after about
3,000 responders, you may have a minimally accurate set of data on
which to base a fairly accepted as accurate conclusion. Good Luck.
Siobhan
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There must be people here who are attracted to masculine men.
> What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
> much like to understand.
I find male bodies attractive. I'm trying to figure out the "why" of
it but honestly it's a hard thing to articulate. I love their big
hands and wide strong forearms. I love their wide shoulders. I love
that no matter how strong and hard their thigh muscles are there is
still a soft tender patch in their inner thighs.
And yes, I like penises. I love how velvety the skin is. I love that
they are so fragile and vulnerable looking when they're soft and that
they are so responsive to the slightest stimulation.
Why? Buggered if I know. I just do.
Siobhan
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnh92il1.5hg...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear
> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
> male bodies that's attractive?
Pass.
> attracted to maleness as such and I can't get my head around it.
<Engaging male crudity mode>
It ain;t your 'ead that needs to get around *it* luv, but your lips, all of
them, ;-)
>As a
> writer it's something I feel I ought to understand.
But it has been written, cave drawing, the rather large male figured etched
out
on the hill side in Sussex I think, that dates back a few 1,000 years. IIRC.
didn't someone find a 5000 year-old or more stone dildo.
Most cultures seem to have some interest in the penis, or should I say male
penis,
just to get things straight :)
Historically perhaps it's because it's one of the main ways of pleasuring a
man in order
that the women gets something out of it (semen), i.e pregnancy or sharing
in his world
of land and power by giving him something in return (other than grief).
Of course noweradays some women and probably men are more attracted to the
credit card or expense account, but etching them in to a hillside isn't the
the thing to do.
> My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
> expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
> sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
> imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires.
I've often wondered how such desires are conditioned in to the animal
behavour.
With most creatures it's the desire to propagate the species, but that
doesn't
really count when it comes to gay attraction.
Then there's the idea of why the genitalia of another has the ability
to make a person sexually excited, is it because the genitalia is different
between the
sexes for reproduction anyway, but that again that doesn;t explain the
attraction
between same sexes yet again.
I wonder if our big toes were to produce sperm or eggs whether they'd
be seen as the organs of sexual desire (for the majority), I'd assume so.
>What makes
> a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed, so
> are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
> something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
> well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
> appeals to them?
Yes our logic, our inteligence, our ability to walk past a shoe shop.
> Can masculine-bodied men be appealing on a sensual
> level the way women can, or is that just a device used by pornography
> that doesn't much represent actual experienced desires? Some voices -
> Genet for instance - express it in a way that seems genuine, but it's
> hard to tell how typical they are.
I guess it must be true as some women say they are turned off by such
masculine-bodied men, is that anti-conditioning.
But also fashion can heighten such things as hair styles or lack of hair.
Moustaches, beardss, sideburns, even designer clothes labels, even cars.
> There must be people here who are attracted to masculine men.
> What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
> much like to understand.
I always understood it as a primiative thing regardiong prodection and
being strong enough and fit enough to work to support a family but that is
deep inside
a woman's or males genetic conditioning and is a primitive protection
mechanism
even a strong women is weaker and vunerable when pregnant.
One thing I'd like to know is whether or not the men in tribes and cultures
where the women walk around virtually naked or at least topless are turned
on in the same way we are in the western world by nuditiy.
They can hardly "shout get ya tits out for the lads"
whisky-dave
>Buggered if I know.
That's it, now just touch your toes to recieve your reward ;-)
Octavian
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There must be people here who are attracted to masculine men.
> What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
> much like to understand.
/me delurk
I find that usually the ability for someone to take care of themselves
is what will shine through. I can look at someone as say to myself
"they don't look very attractive but if they took better care of
themself..." This can be true of any body type of population class
that I might normally find attractive in a prospective partner.
~Octavian
Octavian
> One thing I'd like to know is whether or not the men in tribes and cultures
> where the women walk around virtually naked or at least topless are turned
> on in the same way we are in the western world by nuditiy.
> They can hardly "shout get ya tits out for the lads"
I have found that, after a decade of being around SCA events (medieval
and renaissance re-enactment) where the night-life is fairly wild that
there is not as much of a turn-on based merely on the nude body. The
'virtually naked' does still have an appeal generated by itself, but
then I still walk around in a daily society that requires these silly
garments...
~Octavian
whisky-dave
"Octavian" <octa...@silvermoondesigns.org> wrote in message
news:e1fb39f2-3d9e-48ad...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> There must be people here who are attracted to masculine men.
> What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
> much like to understand.
}/me delurk
}I find that usually the ability for someone to take care of themselves
}is what will shine through.
So that means you can't fancy someone, that say hasn;t got a job or with
little money and no where to live and even less propects.
I can understand it but it does appear a little shallow.
} I can look at someone as say to myself
}"they don't look very attractive but if they took better care of
}themself..." This can be true of any body type of population class
}that I might normally find attractive in a prospective partner.
maybe that's true for some, but I've never really found goth types fancying
businessmen types in suites or people that would be classed as well dressed.
Well except for one, but perhaps the 1/2 million quid flat in kensington
and spending �500+ a week on drugs was the attraction. :)
There's also the footballers wives type, I really can't see them going with
someone I'm likely to see in a Goth club.
Elder
> }I find that usually the ability for someone to take care of themselves
> }is what will shine through.
> So that means you can't fancy someone, that say hasn;t got a job or with
> little money and no where to live and even less propects.
> I can understand it but it does appear a little shallow.
>
Doesn't need to be conventional, but well shaved with clean hair even if
spiked to the moon and not ponging like a fish farm bucket on a hot day
goes a long way and doesn't take Rockafellas bank balance to do it.
Even the Crusty look can look both genuine and presentable. It doesn't
have to be either the dirty flea pit, or fake shop bought look.
whisky-dave
"Elder" <carl....@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24fdec8dc...@news.individual.net...
> In article <h70ecc$5rv$1@qmul>, whisk...@final.front.ear says...
>> }I find that usually the ability for someone to take care of themselves
>> }is what will shine through.
>> So that means you can't fancy someone, that say hasn;t got a job or with
>> little money and no where to live and even less propects.
>> I can understand it but it does appear a little shallow.
>>
> I think this is a reference to hygene/appearance/posture etc.
> Doesn't need to be conventional, but well shaved with clean hair even if
> spiked to the moon and not ponging like a fish farm bucket on a hot day
> goes a long way and doesn't take Rockafellas bank balance to do it.
Sometimes image is image and most people do something for image.
>
> Even the Crusty look can look both genuine and presentable. It doesn't
> have to be either the dirty flea pit, or fake shop bought look.
But I don;t like either on a perspective partner.
I don;t like shorts either, and I think I've only ever seen a few girls
that look attractive in them, I don;t like the ripped jeans look either,
especially the rock look and there's plenty of those about in fact the
majority
of the girls in my area seem to have that look, but I think that's the
current
Polish or maybe other Eastern European look.
Being male and rather shallow look IS important and even a crustie with
real diamonds in their hair being driven in a chauffeured black limo
wouldn't[1] interest me, well unless it had a good bar installed,
but who could blame me ;-)
[1] unless I got to know that person and found out that personality wise
I really liked them.
Peter H. Coffin
But what does this have to do with what you find attractive in MEN? You
know, what the subject line is talking about?
--
78. I will not tell my Legions of Terror "And he must be taken alive!" The
command will be "And try to take him alive if it is reasonably practical."
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh97pnq....@abyss.ninehells.com...
Well I can't be sure but I'd assume if I was gay then I'd have things
I like about in men in a the similar way, and I aslo assume that it's the
same for gay men although I only know a few gay men.
I've been to gay clubs as I've said before and I don't understand
the attractiveness of those Freddie moustaches. They must grow them for
some reason, now jennies post is about how attractive penisis are to
women or men. With so few reposnses I'm guessing it's difficult
to get much data. But I'm wondering whether jennie has considered
what men find attractive in women, or is that too easy a question.
I know girls that have gone to male strip clubs even my mum has
but I don;t think the primary reason is to see a penis, for a limited few it
may be
but the majority it's about a night out, and I think most would do it even
without
seeing a penis. It's also curious why probably the most famous strip act
other than gipsy rose is the Chippendales male strip group.
But does that tell us anything ?
Elder
> Being male and rather shallow look IS important and even a crustie with
> real diamonds in their hair being driven in a chauffeured black limo
> wouldn't[1] interest me, well unless it had a good bar installed,
> but who could blame me ;-)
>
http://smallr.com/b7f
Which I do rather like.
Jennie Kermode
> some reason, now jennies post is about how attractive penisis are to
> women or men.
That's _one_ of the things I was asking about. I'm curious as
to what is physically appealing about male bodies in general. Siobhan's
answer was interesting and discussed a lot more than just penises.
> With so few reposnses I'm guessing it's difficult to get much data.
I'm not trying to reach some kind of universally applicable
scientific conclusion; I'm not sure that would ever be possible. I'm
just trying to pick up some clues.
> But I'm wondering whether jennie has considered
> what men find attractive in women, or is that too easy a question.
It's easy for me to see that women are attractive. I'm not
physically attracted to men (unless, as mentioned previously, they look
like women), so the only way I can know what's attractive about them is
to ask. I don't greatly care about the sex of the people who answer.
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnh98qeg.6s3...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2009-08-25, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> some reason, now jennies post is about how attractive penisis are to
>> women or men.
>
> That's _one_ of the things I was asking about. I'm curious as
> to what is physically appealing about male bodies in general.
I've also been curious about female bodies and theirn attraction,
and only recently 5 years or so tried to work out why they are attractive,
especially large fake breast that other men place so much importance on.
>Siobhan's
> answer was interesting and discussed a lot more than just penises.
I did read it, and that's why I waffled on about attraction from other POV.
>> With so few reposnses I'm guessing it's difficult to get much data.
>
> I'm not trying to reach some kind of universally applicable
> scientific conclusion; I'm not sure that would ever be possible. I'm
> just trying to pick up some clues.
It's a good ideas, but there didnt; seem to be many clues comign forth
compared with the wealth of information easily avalible i.e the Chippendales
.
Oh not forgetting my transgendered pre-op people who consider themselves
male
but not male enough to think of each other as males until they have a penis,
and even then I doubt they will, but of course others should because that's
what they are.
>> But I'm wondering whether jennie has considered
>> what men find attractive in women, or is that too easy a question.
>
> It's easy for me to see that women are attractive.
The idea of attraction is what I find interesting.
And for me moustaches are in the same league as bulldogs.
>I'm not
> physically attracted to men (unless, as mentioned previously, they look
> like women), so the only way I can know what's attractive about them is
> to ask.
I understand that but what is it you find attractive ?
You say women and men that look like women so what is it about women
that you find attractive, as I too can find men that look like women
attractive
but that attraction takes a different route should I find out they have a
plug
rather than a socket, and I have reason to believe that this is a genetic
thing
rather than a learnt response so I assume it is roughly the same for women.
>I find I don't greatly care about the sex of the people who answer.
> Jennie
Do you mean their sex or gender ;-)
I'm confused and it's only wednesday :-/
whisky-dave
> In article <h70nig$8sc$1@qmul>, whisk...@final.front.ear says...
>> Being male and rather shallow look IS important and even a crustie with
>> real diamonds in their hair being driven in a chauffeured black limo
>> wouldn't[1] interest me, well unless it had a good bar installed,
>> but who could blame me ;-)
>>
> Something like this one.
> http://smallr.com/b7f
>
> Which I do rather like.
Me too, and appears quite cheap, but I don;t know much about cars.
I like the :- VIEWING IS RECOMMENDED PARTICLAR AT NIGHT TIME.
Pity it doesn't come complete with a free death chyck.
Elder
> Pity it doesn't come complete with a free death chyck.
>
Peter H. Coffin
> In article <h7357m$2gc$1@qmul>, whisk...@final.front.ear says...
>> Pity it doesn't come complete with a free death chyck.
>>
> I'm sure you could pick one of those up by opening the mini-bar.
The sound of a cocktail shaker increases the appeal of any boy.
--
The only thing I'd use on guinea-fowl is a shredder. Same with peacocks.
The sound of peacocks being shredded can't possibly be any worse than
the sound of peacocks not being shredded.
-- Tanuki
Elder
hel...@ninehells.com says...
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:55:22 +0100, Elder wrote:
> > In article <h7357m$2gc$1@qmul>, whisk...@final.front.ear says...
> >> Pity it doesn't come complete with a free death chyck.
> >>
> > I'm sure you could pick one of those up by opening the mini-bar.
>
> The sound of a cocktail shaker increases the appeal of any boy.
>
>
Peter H. Coffin
> In article <slrnh9alh3....@abyss.ninehells.com>,
> hel...@ninehells.com says...
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:55:22 +0100, Elder wrote:
>> > In article <h7357m$2gc$1@qmul>, whisk...@final.front.ear says...
>> >> Pity it doesn't come complete with a free death chyck.
>> >>
>> > I'm sure you could pick one of those up by opening the mini-bar.
>>
>> The sound of a cocktail shaker increases the appeal of any boy.
>>
>>
> As does the Absinthe bottle once you have their attention.
Getting their attention in the first place is ...
SHINY!
--
A *huge* proportion of people cannot make *correct and accurate*
generalisations of principles. They have to learn everything as if
it's an unrelated piece of crap, BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID! PEOPLE ARE STUPID!
-- Thorfinn in the Monastery
Jennie Kermode
> I've also been curious about female bodies and theirn attraction,
> and only recently 5 years or so tried to work out why they are attractive,
> especially large fake breast that other men place so much importance on.
I don't think we should assume things are attractive just
because they're culturally presented that way. Hatter has discussed here
before why he finds fake breasts attractive, and that was interesting to
read, but I think he's in a minority - they're popular in lads' mags
etc. because people think they ought to be attracted to them, not
because most of them are.
I think all one can really ask is why one personally finds a
particular type of body attractive; and one can ask friends in places
like this where people are generally willing to be honest (and
understand the value of honest discussion).
> It's a good ideas, but there didnt; seem to be many clues comign forth
> compared with the wealth of information easily avalible i.e the Chippendales
That latter stuff isn't information at all, though. All it
tells us is what the media say people are attracted to, and what people
think they ought to pretend they're attracted to. Quite possibly there
really are people who lust after the Chippendales, but I don't think we
should take that for granted.
> And for me moustaches are in the same league as bulldogs.
Heh. Yeah... I'm pretty much with you on that. Though I know
one or two men who suit their twirly Victorian villain type moustaches,
even if it's not something I personally find attractive; and I think I
quite suit a pencil moustache myself - if only Hitler hadn't made them
so unpopular...
> You say women and men that look like women so what is it about women
> that you find attractive
That's another thread. Since you seem determined to talk about
it, I'll start it, but I'm not just going to let this one drift and lose
its usefulness.
Jennie Kermode
> news:slrnh98qeg.6s3...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>> they look like women), so the only way I can know what's attractive
>> about them is to ask.
> I understand that but what is it you find attractive ?
Curves; a certain delicacy of features; slender (though not
necessarily non-muscular) arms, legs and fingers; large eyes; pert
arses; a certain way of walking and sitting. And breasts (preferably
small and firm) and female genitals, though obviously men are less
likely to have these latter features and genitals aren't likely to be
something I pay attention to until after I've already made up my mind to
become intimate with a person.
> I too can find men that look like women attractive but that attraction
> takes a different route should I find out they have a plug rather than
> a socket
Genitals aren't a deal breaker for me. If I'm turned on by
somebody otherwise, I'm happy to play with whatever is to hand - but I'm
less likely to get that far in the first place if the genitals are male,
because the rest of the body is less likely to appeal to me.
whisky-dave
> On 2009-08-26, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> I've also been curious about female bodies and theirn attraction,
>> and only recently 5 years or so tried to work out why they are
>> attractive,
>> especially large fake breast that other men place so much importance on.
>
> I don't think we should assume things are attractive just
> because they're culturally presented that way.
But I have heard that flowers and fruits are coloured in such ways to
attract certain insects
for pollination and insects have colours to attract and distract mates and
enemies.
And I do think in the animal kingdoms opposite 'sexes' are attracted to each
other
for the purposes of breeding, but of course that doesn;t explain homesexual
activity
which one would think opposes breeding.
>Hatter has discussed here
> before why he finds fake breasts attractive, and that was interesting to
> read, but I think he's in a minority - they're popular in lads' mags
> etc. because people think they ought to be attracted to them, not
> because most of them are.
But they do tend to only appear on females, so many that's
teh natural attraction and that biggest is best.
> I think all one can really ask is why one personally finds a
> particular type of body attractive; and one can ask friends in places
> like this where people are generally willing to be honest (and
> understand the value of honest discussion).
I agree and to be honest I can;t really think of a logical reason why
I should find the female body more attractive than the male apart from the
fact it is different,
perhaps that's not enough, but I do believe that the urge to breed or rather
propagate
the species has something to do with it.
>> It's a good ideas, but there didnt; seem to be many clues comign forth
>> compared with the wealth of information easily avalible i.e the
>> Chippendales
>
> That latter stuff isn't information at all, though. All it
> tells us is what the media say people are attracted to, and what people
> think they ought to pretend they're attracted to. Quite possibly there
> really are people who lust after the Chippendales, but I don't think we
> should take that for granted.
If there's money in it, then I can;t argue can I ;-)
I was suprised I like the film "The Full Monty"
We seem to assume that strip clubs are more popular for men than women
so perhaps that's why there are more. I'd have thought that if someone
thought women would be more interested in male strip clubs someone would
take advantage of it.
>> And for me moustaches are in the same league as bulldogs.
>
> Heh. Yeah... I'm pretty much with you on that. Though I know
> one or two men who suit their twirly Victorian villain type moustaches,
Yes that's an image thing rather than a sexual 'prop' I assume.
A bit like a bowler hat or a walking stick that you don't really need.
> even if it's not something I personally find attractive; and I think I
> quite suit a pencil moustache myself - if only Hitler hadn't made them
> so unpopular...
yes he has quite a bit to answer for, but not as much as he's mothers doctor
!
>> You say women and men that look like women so what is it about women
>> that you find attractive
>
> That's another thread. Since you seem determined to talk about
> it, I'll start it, but I'm not just going to let this one drift and lose
> its usefulness.
yes I agree.
Did you happen to see the one show last night 7pm BBC 1
They had a very short talk about the differences between gender and sex.
I missed the first bit, cause I was in the kitchen. :-( [1]
but I heard that it will take 'experts' 7 weeks of tests to tell whether the
runner
is male or female so I dont; feel quite a silly for being confused myself.
[1] if I were a real man I'd have a women in the kitchen barefoot
and pregnant preparing my dinner ;-)
whisky-dave
> On 2009-08-26, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> "Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:slrnh98qeg.6s3...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>>> I'm not physically attracted to men (unless, as mentioned previously,
>>> they look like women), so the only way I can know what's attractive
>>> about them is to ask.
>
>> I understand that but what is it you find attractive ?
>
> Curves; a certain delicacy of features; slender (though not
> necessarily non-muscular) arms, legs and fingers; large eyes; pert
> arses; a certain way of walking and sitting. And breasts (preferably
> small and firm) and female genitals,
That sort of similar to how I feel (I think) althoguh why is another Q.
>though obviously men are less
> likely to have these latter features and genitals aren't likely to be
> something I pay attention to until after I've already made up my mind to
> become intimate with a person.
That's where you appear to differ to most people even gay people seem to
want to know what they'll get a handful of. Yes ever the transgender/sex
change ones
I know. They know what they want in their hands or anywhere else.
>
>> I too can find men that look like women attractive but that attraction
>> takes a different route should I find out they have a plug rather than
>> a socket
>
> Genitals aren't a deal breaker for me. If I'm turned on by
> somebody otherwise, I'm happy to play with whatever is to hand - but I'm
> less likely to get that far in the first place if the genitals are male,
> because the rest of the body is less likely to appeal to me.
I can understand that and I'm guessing those males that flaunt their
genitals and sexuality are a bit of a turn off for you.
So I can;t really understand what women (sane ones) see in those types,
but there's obviously something are their any on this NG that understand or
like that type.
When I watch Ibiza uncovered my brain melts, and to think my friend wants
me to go there with him in two weeks time :-<>
Although some of those girls I find attractive (physically) if only they
had a mute button
and a few more brains cells I could be tempted ;-)
siani
> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear
> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
> because of the ways in which they resemble women, but I've never been
> attracted to maleness as such and I can't get my head around it. As a
> writer it's something I feel I ought to understand. As usual, when faced
> with a difficult question people might not answer honestly elsewhere, I
> turn to alt.gothic.
> My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
> expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
> sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
> are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
> something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
> well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
> that doesn't much represent actual experienced desires? Some voices -
> Genet for instance - express it in a way that seems genuine, but it's
> hard to tell how typical they are.
> What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
> much like to understand.
PENISES ARE GREAT
they become erect. erections are just kind of inherently hawt. you
might as well ask why men get hard looking at women's genitals. that
shit looks like a plate of roast beef, and i mean, i like roast beef,
but there's something disconnected between what's THEORETICALLY
aesthetically appealing and what's actually attractive. why is a penis
attractive? because it's a penis.
what's attractive about the male body? that it's male. that curve
between the neck and the shoulder that's a different shape on men to on
women, the way their butts are skinnier than their waists, the curve of
the spine, the way the muscles sit on the chest. the way their biceps
show through the skin when they lift up a mug.
honestly, though, for both genders, the appeal of the body seems to be
that it contains the mind.
siani
Satori
> PENISES ARE GREAT
> they become erect. erections are just kind of inherently hawt.
I actually agree with this. I'm somewhat bisexual, though my interest in
men (much like Jennie's) tends towards the androgynous ones. But I do
think there's something sexy about an erect penis. Flacid ones do
nothing for me, though.
> you
> might as well ask why men get hard looking at women's genitals. that
> shit looks like a plate of roast beef, and i mean, i like roast beef,
> but there's something disconnected between what's THEORETICALLY
> aesthetically appealing and what's actually attractive. why is a penis
> attractive? because it's a penis.
That makes as much sense as anything. We're probably attracted to the
genitals to which we're attracted because we're wired to be so. Good
trait for perpetuation of the species, I imagine.
> what's attractive about the male body? that it's male. that curve
> between the neck and the shoulder that's a different shape on men to on
> women, the way their butts are skinnier than their waists, the curve of
> the spine, the way the muscles sit on the chest. the way their biceps
> show through the skin when they lift up a mug.
>
> honestly, though, for both genders, the appeal of the body seems to be
> that it contains the mind.
Yes, but some minds are very unattractive...
Siobhan
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2009-08-26, whisky-dave <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
> > I've also been curious about female bodies and theirn attraction,
> > and only recently 5 years or so tried to work out why they are attractive,
> > especially large fake breast that other men place so much importance on.
>
> I don't think we should assume things are attractive just
> because they're culturally presented that way. Hatter has discussed here
> before why he finds fake breasts attractive, and that was interesting to
> read, but I think he's in a minority - they're popular in lads' mags
> etc. because people think they ought to be attracted to them, not
> because most of them are.
Yes. That.
I persist in being attracted to men and women who aren't supposed to
be sexy by conventional standards. I really really really don't get
the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt thing[1].
*I'm* not attractive by conventional standards - in fact by popular
convention I'm way past being attractive. Yet I don't seem to have any
problem finding people who want to fuck me.[2]
Siobhan
[1] Not that there is anything wrong with being attracted to either of
them, I just don't get why they are held up as the epitome of sexy.
[2] To my eternal surprise and gratitude.
Siobhan
> siani wrote:
> > honestly, though, for both genders, the appeal of the body seems to be
> > that it contains the mind.
>
> Yes, but some minds are very unattractive...
Oh Gods, yes. There have been multiple occasions where I have thought
somebody was really attractive until they opened their mouth. I could
*watch* them get uglier as they talked.
Siobhan
Siobhan
> > PENISES ARE GREAT
> > they become erect. erections are just kind of inherently hawt.
>
> I actually agree with this. I'm somewhat bisexual, though my interest in
> men (much like Jennie's) tends towards the androgynous ones. But I do
> think there's something sexy about an erect penis. Flacid ones do
> nothing for me, though.
Watching a flaccid penis get erect in response to something I'm doing
is probably one of the most erotic things in my universe.
Female genitalia can be less obvious depending on the person, but the
principle is the same.
Siobhan
Jennie Kermode
> And I do think in the animal kingdoms opposite 'sexes' are attracted to each
> other for the purposes of breeding
One would certainly expect as much.
> but of course that doesn;t explain homesexual activity which one would
> think opposes breeding.
Why would it oppose breeding? Fucking people of the same sex
doesn't stop one from fucking people of the 'opposite' sex too.
It makes perfect sense that (at least some) people would
experience homosexual attraction if you stop thinking of things in terms
of, say, men being attractive to women, and start thinking of it in
terms of men being cute. For various reasons that cuteness doesn't
appeal to all of us, but it doesn't need to, it only needs to appeal to
_enough_ of us.
> But they do tend to only appear on females, so many that's
> teh natural attraction and that biggest is best.
Rule number one: there is no 'natural attraction' in the
sense of there being only one fundamental type of attraction from which
all others derive. That's bollocks.
The fact that breasts usually only appear on women doesn't
mean that the bigger the breasts are, the more appealingly female that
person will be. There are other factors. For instance, breasts are
likely to be at their largest when a woman is breastfeeding, at which
point she's unlikely to be fertile.
> I was suprised I like the film "The Full Monty"
It's a playful film, isn't it? I think part of the idea there
is that women are often emotionally attracted to men who are prepared to
expose their vulnerabilities, to admit they're not perfect, and to have
fun.
> We seem to assume that strip clubs are more popular for men than women
> so perhaps that's why there are more. I'd have thought that if someone
> thought women would be more interested in male strip clubs someone would
> take advantage of it.
Women tend to have less disposable income than men, so there
will always be more products and services aimed at men than at women.
Also, women's sexuality tends to face much stricter social regulation.
Think of the different ways in which women and men who enjoy casual sex
are treated (in mainstream society, not necessarily in the goth scene).
A woman who goes to a strip club is far more likely to be criticised for
it, and (outside of a limited section of youth culture) she's less
likely to be encouraged to do it.
> [1] if I were a real man I'd have a women in the kitchen barefoot
> and pregnant preparing my dinner ;-)
Apart from the pregnancy bit, I have Donald doing that for me
right now. ;)
Siobhan
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2009-08-28, whisky-dave <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
> > but of course that doesn;t explain homesexual activity which one would
> > think opposes breeding.
>
> Why would it oppose breeding? Fucking people of the same sex
> doesn't stop one from fucking people of the 'opposite' sex too.
Even if it does it doesn't necessarily mean it's not an evolutionary
advantage. Having some childless adults around to invest in raising,
protecting and feeding children would give the babies that a group
does produce a much better chance of suriving to reproductive age.
Siobhan
Peter H. Coffin
For that matter, "biological drive" isn't neatly programed as a
globally-scoped boolean variable that the various bits check in with.
Sometimes, the part that goes "oooh, nice shoulderblades" gets stuck on
"oooh, nice rack" and they both go into the sack. (I don't mean this
literally, nor as a direct metaphor for genetics, but genetics to have a
role in this.)
--
33. I won't require high-ranking female members of my organization to wear
a stainless-steel bustier. Morale is better with a more casual dress-code.
Similarly, outfits made entirely from black leather will be reserved for
formal occasions. --Peter Anspach's Evil Overlord List
kest
> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear
> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
> male bodies that's attractive?
Let's see. Starting at the top, I like:
* facial hair
* strong jawlines
* muscular shoulders
* chest hair
* male nipples
* large hands
* cocks
* tight butts
Don't really think about legs and feet much.
> are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
> something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
> well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
> appeals to them?
I found penises (the erect kind) to be somewhat startling at first, but
since I got used to them, I do find them attractive. Some are more
attractive than others, but I'm not sure I could really tell you what
makes for an attractive vs an unattractive penis. It is possible that
it is not aesthetics so much as a subconscious understanding of what
makes me feel good.
Have you seen Filament? Ara has been posting about it on LJ as she did
some photography for it, and I am very tempted to get a subscription, as
it seems like a very interesting idea, but the overseas mailing costs
plus the exchange rate make it seem very expensive indeed.
k
kest
> The contrast of softness and hardness that the
Yes, I think in general the hard/soft contrast is very attractive.
k
Jennie Kermode
> I do think there's something sexy about an erect penis. Flacid ones
> do nothing for me, though.
Oddly, I'm the other way around. There's nothing I
particularly dislike about erect penises, and they can be fun to play
with if attached to appealing bodies, but flaccid ones have a more
direct appeal, being delicate and vulnerable like the lobes of ears or
that tender patch of skin just to the side between belly and groin.
> That makes as much sense as anything. We're probably attracted to the
> genitals to which we're attracted because we're wired to be so.
I suppose what I meant to ask is what the experience of
attraction to male bodies is like, not why it happens.
Jennie Kermode
> PENISES ARE GREAT
Heh. I should have known that you would be the person to ask
about this particular aspect of it.
> but there's something disconnected between what's THEORETICALLY
> aesthetically appealing and what's actually attractive.
This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to know. I guess it
works a little bit that way for me with regard to female genitals, but
that's balanced by the fact that female bodies do both. Then again,
there are all sorts of animals whose bodies I find aesthetically
appealing without feeling sexually attracted to them.
> what's attractive about the male body? that it's male. that curve
> between the neck and the shoulder that's a different shape on men to on
> women, the way their butts are skinnier than their waists, the curve of
> the spine, the way the muscles sit on the chest. the way their biceps
> show through the skin when they lift up a mug.
This is all really useful; thank you. I must admit, I've never
looked at (masculine) male spines before. I note that they're less
dramatically curved, and there my attention wanders. I shall have to
start paying attention to their particular shape.
> honestly, though, for both genders, the appeal of the body seems to be
> that it contains the mind.
That's a fine way for things to work, and I wish it were that
way for me, but sadly I know that I can love a person on a mental,
intellectual and emotional level without finding that person's body
appealing at all. I've tried all kinds of ways to work around this but
it just seems to be the way I'm wired. Fortunately I don't have the
problem that many people do with automatically finding bodies less
attractive as they age, so my sexual relationships are not always doomed
to be short-lived; they just malfunction, after the first flush of
brain-connecty excitement, if bodies become too masculine. :(
TenshiKurai9
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear
>> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
>> male bodies that's attractive?
>
> Let's see. Starting at the top, I like:
> * male nipples
Wonderfully sensitive things indeed on so many men.
-TenshiKurai9
VVW
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Can masculine-bodied men be appealing on a sensual
> level the way women can, or is that just a device used by pornography
> that doesn't much represent actual experienced desires?
The sensual appeal of the male body is, IMO, not particularly well
displayed in still photographs. It shows up when the person is in
motion. Most porn has zero appeal for me because the men are usually
moving in uninteresting ways.
I like hands and arms, particularly that big bump of bone at the
wrist, the spine, the clavicle, musculature of legs and chest, skin
texture. As someone said upthread, there's nothing quite like seeing
the penis going from slack to erect, but I wouldn't call it strictly
visual appeal. It's more like "Free Beer! Pony for my birthday! Party
time!"
Korin
Indeed, I was pleased to find a sexual partner who actually took the
time to find out that they are sensitive, given enough attention.
All other partners I've had have pretty much ignored them, as if the
possibility of male nipples having sensation had never crossed their minds.
Korin
Panurge
> What is it about male bodies that's attractive?
Pretty much the same things that are attractive about women's bodies.
Since men are trained to keep themselves differently (or hardly at all),
it's not as noticeable. Which is kind of the point--the unspoken
thought underlying the whole debate is: "If men are beautiful, there
will be more gay sex." And I think that's true--I'm Exhibit A, because
if men made themselves beautiful, *I* would be having more gay sex (or
at least *some* gay sex). Some men are attracted to men as they are;
I'm attracted to men as they might be. But as I think I've said before,
the "gay community" seems to have a really big chip on its shoulder
about masculinity that the "lesbian community" doesn't about femininity.
> I've never been
> attracted to maleness as such and I can't get my head around it.
If you understand "maleness" as "the opposite of femaleness", perhaps.
Maleness is defined against femaleness to a much greater degree than
anyone wants to admit, even though it's manifestly obvious considering
the extent to which "girly" is an epithet.
> My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
> expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
> sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
> imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires. What makes
> a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed,
I wonder about that, what with the lengths society goes to to hide even
any trace of the penis.
I don't know if I'm particularly attracted to genitals; I'm attracted to
*bodies*, with hair as an essential element. Someone raised the matter
of total nudity; well, I figure that seeing the body whole is a fairly
essential component of sexual desire, which is what all the fuss about
tight clothes is about--it's a way to be clothed and nude at the same
time.
--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony
Axel
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think we should assume things are attractive just
>because they're culturally presented that way. Hatter has discussed here
>before why he finds fake breasts attractive, and that was interesting to
>read, but I think he's in a minority - they're popular in lads' mags
>etc. because people think they ought to be attracted to them, not
>because most of them are.
I don't think that's an either/or thing.
A wise man once said 'The public want what the public get'.
We are, after all, troop animals with a large vocabulary and weak
hands.
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
Nyx
What's a troop animal?
Nyx
Peter H. Coffin
A critter slightly cleverer than a herd animal.
But not much.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Axel
wrote:
>What's a troop animal?
Chimpanzees
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
~Fianna
"Siobhan" <thesi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7864d89f-798f-468c...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
_____
Yes, this. Absolutely. Stupid is the biggest turnoff... and there are a
frightful number of stupid people out there.
I can fuck someone just based on looks, provided they don't try to engage me
in conversation. If the conversation is not satisfactory, though, all bets
are just off.
I imagine there are a number of guys out there who wondered what the hell
happened, since they probably thought they were being less skeezy by
actually engaging in conversation, whereas I was standing there thinking
'wow, if you'd just shut up 10 minutes ago, you'd have gotten laid.'
~Fi, much more stereotypically male that way, I suppose.
~Fianna
"kest" <ke...@removethedamnspamtrap.nettrip.org> wrote in message
news:tbvpm6-...@abyss.ninehells.com...
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear that
>> I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about male
>> bodies that's attractive?
>
> Let's see. Starting at the top, I like:
> * facial hair
> * strong jawlines
> * muscular shoulders
> * chest hair
> * male nipples
> * large hands
> * cocks
> * tight butts
>
> Don't really think about legs and feet much.
I do not understand the feet thing. I think feet are weird and somewhat
ickky. In fact, Satori is the first person that's ever been let touch my
feet in any sort of non-shoe-store-clerk kind of way. Oddly it feels really
good... which makes me feel weird because feet are gross and should not be a
source of pleasure.
~Fi, dislikes her own feet immensely, but apparantly is the only one.
~Fianna
"Korin" <thorncultre...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:h7fd09$vav$1...@gwaiyur.mb-net.net...
But that cuts down on the most fun part of a new partner - the whole what
happens when I touch you here part. Skipping over parts just makes that so
much less fun.
~Fi
Peter H. Coffin
> I imagine there are a number of guys out there who wondered what the hell
> happened, since they probably thought they were being less skeezy by
> actually engaging in conversation, whereas I was standing there thinking
> 'wow, if you'd just shut up 10 minutes ago, you'd have gotten laid.'
'sokay. It just ups my chances.
--
Frankly, your argument wouldn't float were the sea composed of mercury.
-- Biff
Siobhan
wrote:
> I found penises (the erect kind) to be somewhat startling at first, but
> since I got used to them, I do find them attractive. Some are more
> attractive than others, but I'm not sure I could really tell you what
> makes for an attractive vs an unattractive penis. It is possible that
> it is not aesthetics so much as a subconscious understanding of what
> makes me feel good.
Every penis is as unique as a face. I'm fascinated by that.
And for some reason utterly charmed by the ones that bend to one side
or the other. They don't feel any different but that touch of
asymmetry really appeals to me.
Siobhan
Jennie Kermode
> Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> What is it about male bodies that's attractive?
> Pretty much the same things that are attractive about women's bodies.
I can see that, to a degree, but what I'm trying to
understand is what makes men appealing as a specific group. There have
been some very helpful answers in this thread and I think I have more
clue as a result - thanks guys!
> Since men are trained to keep themselves differently (or hardly at all),
> it's not as noticeable.
In so far as things like cleanliness are an issue, yes, I
understand that. For me, though, the things I'm attracted to are
uncommon on male bodies for other reasons; most men don't have much of a
lordosis curve, for instance; their eyes are smaller and they're bulkier
in general, as if overstuffed.
> Which is kind of the point- the unspoken thought underlying the whole
> debate is: "If men are beautiful, there will be more gay sex."
You mean that if men present themselves as attractive objects
then other men will desire them as they desire women, with women's
desire for them being presumed from the outset to work differently
because women are not seen as having that kind of subjectivity? It's one
way to look at it. Kest and Siani, though - and others here - are
clearly active agents in their desire for men of traditional appearance
- perhaps that's what makes Siani gay enough for her boy. ;)
> the "gay community" seems to have a really big chip on its shoulder
> about masculinity that the "lesbian community" doesn't about femininity.
On your planet, maybe.
I think you need to talk to more lesbians. There are clubs
where I am still not welcome just because I have long hair. Many
lesbians are vicious about anything perceived as feminine.
> If you understand "maleness" as "the opposite of femaleness", perhaps.
For me, I don't think it's so much that. I really am talking
primarily about physical traits. A big bulky man who thrills people with
a certain type of sexuality can dress up in as feminine a manner as he
wants and he still won't do it for me.
>> imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires. What makes
>> a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed,
> I wonder about that, what with the lengths society goes to to hide even
> any trace of the penis.
It's been written about plenty, and presented in art, in
assorted cultures over the ages. We know that small penises were desired
in Ancient Greece, for instance, whereas large ones are desired now. (In
terms of fashion, that is - I'm sure individuals have always had their
own, often divergent, private preferences.)
> of total nudity; well, I figure that seeing the body whole is a fairly
> essential component of sexual desire, which is what all the fuss about
> tight clothes is about--it's a way to be clothed and nude at the same
> time.
<shrug> I'm with Ballard on this - a collection of the
appropriate angled, images and scents can be perfectly satisfactory; I
don't need wholeness, though it certainly helps to have personality
thrown into the mix. Incidentally, lots of people really go for the
clothed and nude thing, and are more attracted to semi-clad people than
they are to naked ones.
Panurge
> On 2009-08-31, Panurge <pan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> For me, though, the things I'm attracted to are
> uncommon on male bodies for other reasons; most men don't have much of a
> lordosis curve, for instance; their eyes are smaller and they're bulkier
> in general, as if overstuffed.
I can see this. Maybe the size lends itself to an impression of
strength that some people find sexy.
> > Which is kind of the point- the unspoken thought underlying the whole
> > debate is: "If men are beautiful, there will be more gay sex."
>
> You mean that if men present themselves as attractive objects
> then other men will desire them as they desire women,
Well, they'll be more likely to do so.
> ...with women's
> desire for them being presumed from the outset to work differently
> because women are not seen as having that kind of subjectivity?
I'm not sure of my mind here; I wasn't even thinking about that. I
guess the logical corollary would be "If women are beautiful, there will
be more lesbian sex." And it does seem that the people running society
don't worry so much about lesbian sex (or even mere physical
affection)--at least not to the extent that anyone would even think
about it the way they seem to do when it comes to men.
> > the "gay community" seems to have a really big chip on its shoulder
> > about masculinity that the "lesbian community" doesn't about femininity.
>
> On your planet, maybe.
> I think you need to talk to more lesbians.
Fair enough.
> There are clubs
> where I am still not welcome just because I have long hair. Many
> lesbians are vicious about anything perceived as feminine.
But what you're saying here is not so far from what I'm saying--*both*
sexes' scenees ultimately seem to value the masculine over the feminine.
They may come at it from different angles, but the results are similar.
I've never really tried to get in at a gay night--I just assumed there'd
be no one there I was interested in, and it's precisely because of the
masculinist angle. I don't know if I'd be unwelcome just for having
long hair, but I'd definitely be the odd boi out.
> A big bulky man who thrills people with
> a certain type of sexuality can dress up in as feminine a manner as he
> wants and he still won't do it for me.
True.
> Incidentally, lots of people really go for the
> clothed and nude thing, and are more attracted to semi-clad people than
> they are to naked ones.
TBH, I'm one of them sometimes (though I don't know about "*more*
attracted"). But they have to be semi-clad just the right way. Some
clothes seem to work with the body and some seem to work against it.
But that's just me--sorry I'm not so much help this time.
TenshiKurai9
> On 2009-08-31, Panurge <pan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> the "gay community" seems to have a really big chip on its shoulder
>> about masculinity that the "lesbian community" doesn't about femininity.
>
> On your planet, maybe.
> I think you need to talk to more lesbians. There are clubs
> where I am still not welcome just because I have long hair. Many
> lesbians are vicious about anything perceived as feminine.
Just claim you're wearing it like a long-hair male and post about the
reactions you get.
Meanwhile, out in my area, there is a group called Mad Femme Pride that
became a meet-up.com group. There thing is to respect gender expression
and explicity state that that includes being femme-friendly.
>> I wonder about that, what with the lengths society goes to to hide even
>> any trace of the penis.
>
> It's been written about plenty, and presented in art, in
> assorted cultures over the ages. We know that small penises were desired
> in Ancient Greece, for instance, whereas large ones are desired now. (In
> terms of fashion, that is - I'm sure individuals have always had their
> own, often divergent, private preferences.)
Do you know why small penises were preferred?
-TenshiKurai9
Jennie Kermode
> Just claim you're wearing it like a long-hair male and post about the
> reactions you get.
Oh, I've done that, because that's the truth, you know? I
keep it like this because it's minimal trouble and I hate all the
feminine primping that goes on in hairdressers' salons (which I'd
doubtless be allergic to these days anyway). I've been told that my hair
makes me look 'like a little girl' and perhaps there's an element of
truth in that, but only in so far as it's a rejection of looking like a
woman. But anyway, one is wasting one's breath trying to say that to a
certain type of lesbian feminist. They always believe they understand
one's mind and motives better than one does oneself.
> Meanwhile, out in my area, there is a group called Mad Femme Pride that
> became a meet-up.com group. There thing is to respect gender expression
> and explicity state that that includes being femme-friendly.
Yes - these movements started to appear in the 'seventies,
and they're invaluable. I'm inclined to agree with Julia Serrano that
the sex/gender thing can be broken down into three components - the body
one is born with, the instinctive sense of gender one feels, and the
gender expression one employs. These can match and mismatch in a variety
of ways even before we consider that, for instance, an individual's
expression may be feminine in some ways and masculine in others (I've
been told that, like Lola, I 'walk like a woman and talk like a man' -
referring to my speech, not the timbre of my voice). All these things
are pretty intrinsic to what constitutes individuality. Try to
politicise them and there's the potential for all sorts of ugliness very
much of the order that feminism at its core is supposed to oppose.
> Do you know why small penises were preferred?
I'm not an expert on this, but it seems that they were
considered aesthetically pleasing. The 'more is better' notion which
pervades so much of our culture wasn't really around in Ancient Greece,
and an attractive male body, as celebrated in popular culture, was a
graceful, athletic one. Also, the focus on youth as object-choice may
have favoured a certain delicacy of the features in general (toned
muscles notwithstanding).
Jennie Kermode
> I'm not sure of my mind here; I wasn't even thinking about that. I
> guess the logical corollary would be "If women are beautiful, there will
> be more lesbian sex." And it does seem that the people running society
> don't worry so much about lesbian sex (or even mere physical
> affection)--at least not to the extent that anyone would even think
> about it the way they seem to do when it comes to men.
It's policed differently - and society is probably relaxing
about it more quickly. If it's taken less seriously, then, as a
corollary to that, it's given less status - it's seen as something women
might do for fun before or alongside their serious and socially
significant relationships with men. When women are seen to prefer it,
they can either be stigmatised as sexual predators (usually if they're
butch) and subjected to the same kind of aggression as many gay men; or
they can be confused with FTM transsexuals (which often leads to them
being considered legitimate targets for violence); or they can be seen
as victims, whether of predators or of ignorance (which often leads to
the suggestion that they should be 'cured' through sex with men).
Physical affection between women has historically been normal
in Western society (in the Middle East, it's normal between men, which
is often shocking to travellers who easily misinterpret it) but it is
undergoing some interesting changes as lesbianism and female bisexuality
become a more visible part of our cultural currency. Many younger
straight women stubbornly resist this and take part in a consciously
assertive continuance of the old traditions, but they increasingly
attract homophobic comments.
> But what you're saying here is not so far from what I'm saying--*both*
> sexes' scenees ultimately seem to value the masculine over the feminine.
Heh. That's been the focus on some of the biggest internal
battles in the feminist movement for years now. Gradually, the movement
is shifting from promoting the value of women on traditionally masculine
terms to promoting the value of the feminine, but then, of course,
things can go too far in that direction too, and we can end up with a
lot of essentialist semi-mystical hippie Earth mother bullshit.
> I've never really tried to get in at a gay night--I just assumed there'd
> be no one there I was interested in, and it's precisely because of the
> masculinist angle. I don't know if I'd be unwelcome just for having
> long hair, but I'd definitely be the odd boi out.
These things vary - you might well find a club where people
were cool about you being there, and where they found you pleasingly
exotic. Often (though this varies by location) clubs for older gay
people are more relaxed, and it's the ultra-hip young crowd who're most
obsessed with conforming to body ideals (as is the case with young
people in many areas of life).
moonglow minnow
Knowing a bit about greco-roman art and sculpture, there was probably a
mathematical formula that dictated the ideal proportions even down to
the foreskin and the amount and placement of pubic hair. This may or may
not have anything to do with the Golden Mean, which a great deal of art
and archetecture has been designed around.
It may also have had to do with the tendency for men to dominate the
culture, for boys to fuck each other before they entered the realm of
adults and got wives, and for men of high standing to keep not
mistresses so much as adolescent boys for their fuck toys.
Maeve >^..^< art geek in training
--
http://moonglowminnow.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/
Panurge
> On 2009-09-16, Panurge <pan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure of my mind here; I wasn't even thinking about that. I
> > guess the logical corollary would be "If women are beautiful, there will
> > be more lesbian sex." And it does seem that the people running society
> > don't worry so much about lesbian sex (or even mere physical
> > affection)--at least not to the extent that anyone would even think
> > about it the way they seem to do when it comes to men.
>
> It's policed differently - and society is probably relaxing
> about it more quickly. If it's taken less seriously, then, as a
> corollary to that, it's given less status - it's seen as something women
> might do for fun before or alongside their serious and socially
> significant relationships with men.
Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if the same thing happened with men.
> Physical affection between women has historically been normal
> in Western society (in the Middle East, it's normal between men, which
> is often shocking to travellers who easily misinterpret it) but it is
> undergoing some interesting changes as lesbianism and female bisexuality
> become a more visible part of our cultural currency. Many younger
> straight women stubbornly resist this and take part in a consciously
> assertive continuance of the old traditions, but they increasingly
> attract homophobic comments.
Kind of a shame, really. Apparently physical affection was greater in
certain past eras among men, too; I wouldn't want anyone to put
him/herself in a position of feeling less free just in order to avoid
giving the wrong impression.
> Gradually, the movement
> is shifting from promoting the value of women on traditionally masculine
> terms to promoting the value of the feminine, but then, of course,
> things can go too far in that direction too, and we can end up with a
> lot of essentialist semi-mystical hippie Earth mother bullshit.
Well, things going too far and then being corrected too far is pretty
much the story of Western pop culture and society for the past forty
years. Maybe the need for emphasis of some things over others is
actually the root of the problem.
> ...you might well find a club where people were cool about you
> being there, and where they found you pleasingly exotic.
True--I'm probably being too hard on them in that regard. But I
wouldn't be going for social acceptance, IYKWIM. ;-) (As I said
before, I get that here!) :-) I don't mind being "found...pleasingly
exotic", but if I'm Lookin' for Lurve and there's no one but clone-gays,
that doesn't help me. A number of long-haired gays have found each
other on the Net, but it tends toward older men (who might rather have
found each other twenty years ago, but the Net wasn't readily available,
or else actually like older men, a group that doesn't include me). I
guess that's what being shallow gets me.
> Often (though this varies by location) clubs for older gay
> people are more relaxed, and it's the ultra-hip young crowd who're most
> obsessed with conforming to body ideals (as is the case with young
> people in many areas of life).
That may simply be because the older ones *can't* conform. If they
*could*, but *didn't*, that'd be a different story.
I suppose "conformance" is the very marker of socio/cultural identity,
though. The problem is that "gay" and "lesbian" weren't necessarily
supposed to be socio-cultural identities, but modes of sexual
attraction. I suppose that given a group of people coming together and
interacting you'll eventually generate a social group, but once that
happens you start excluding people whose heads are in a different space.
Jennie Kermode
>> corollary to that, it's given less status - it's seen as something women
>> might do for fun before or alongside their serious and socially
>> significant relationships with men.
> Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if the same thing happened with men.
Japanese society would give you a good viewpoint on that,
though, like many cultures, it's become more homophobic since coming
into closer contact with the West. Traditionally homosexual behaviour
was not a big deal as far as the Japanese were concerned provided that
young people had respectable marriages and produced children.
> Kind of a shame, really. Apparently physical affection was greater in
> certain past eras among men, too; I wouldn't want anyone to put
> him/herself in a position of feeling less free just in order to avoid
> giving the wrong impression.
I think it's just a difficult phase we're in at the moment.
In most areas of Western culture there's a continued relaxation of
attitudes toward homosexual behaviour for both men and women (the
backlash shouldn't be confused with a reversal of social change), so
it's probable that, in time, people won't experience the same degree of
concern over the possibility of being misinterpreted. After all, it's
not a concern that's universal in human culture even where homosexuality
is heavily stigmatised.
> Well, things going too far and then being corrected too far is pretty
> much the story of Western pop culture and society for the past forty
> years. Maybe the need for emphasis of some things over others is
> actually the root of the problem.
I think that the last century or so has given us a history of
extremes whereby taking an extreme position is seen as more acceptable
(purer, more honest, braver, more confident) than taking a moderate one,
and this has contributed to a lot of silly politics and the blurring of
genuinely incisive radical agendas (on both the right and the left).
> wouldn't be going for social acceptance, IYKWIM. ;-) (As I said
> before, I get that here!) :-) I don't mind being "found...pleasingly
> exotic", but if I'm Lookin' for Lurve and there's no one but clone-gays,
> that doesn't help me.
I understand that, but then, clubs will only have clones in
them until non-clones start going, if you see what I mean. If you're
there, the next long-haired guy who walks through the door might feel
more at home, and so on. Plus you might meet clones who have friends who
are in your position, friends who don't go to the clubs for the same
reason you don't but who are up for socialising elsewhere.
> I suppose "conformance" is the very marker of socio/cultural identity,
> though. The problem is that "gay" and "lesbian" weren't necessarily
> supposed to be socio-cultural identities, but modes of sexual
> attraction. I suppose that given a group of people coming together and
> interacting you'll eventually generate a social group, but once that
> happens you start excluding people whose heads are in a different space.
There's always the queer/art/political scene, as distinct
from the gay/fashion scene, where unusual and highly individual
appearance is valued much as it is in the non-populist bits of the goth
scene. Have you tried looking for love at gallery openings?
Panurge
<stuff I concur with>
> I think it's just a difficult phase we're in at the moment.
> In most areas of Western culture there's a continued relaxation of
> attitudes toward homosexual behaviour for both men and women (the
> backlash shouldn't be confused with a reversal of social change),
Boy, I dunno about this one. This strikes me as part of a general
post-'60s backlash that's gone on so long (say, the business about long
hair) that in some areas (the ones I care about, natch) it feels like at
least a partial reversal. Sometimes it seems *worse* than
before--rock'n'roll McCarthyites and such.
> ...clubs will only have clones in
> them until non-clones start going, if you see what I mean.
True. (OTOH, now I'm feeling a little stoopid for not having thought of
it this way. OT3rdH, where does it start? It's almost as if it all has
to happen at once to have any effect at all.) Of course, the usual
tactic for men who find themselves in that position is to cut their hair
in order to "fit in".
(I've always wondered: If all the people who decided they had to fit in
stood their ground instead, what would the world look like? Surely it'd
be a world where people didn't feel that need so intensely.)
> Plus you might meet clones who have friends who
> are in your position, friends who don't go to the clubs for the same
> reason you don't but who are up for socialising elsewhere.
> ...Have you tried looking for love at gallery openings?
Hmm. Maybe--it's just that non-clones think of clones as conformists
who wouldn't have us there in the first place. Lots of clone-ness is
born of an attempt to "squarify" gayness, IYKWIM, the better to make it
"safer" and more "acceptable".
(Part of it might be a certain unease at going somewhere new "cold".)
You realize that if any of this works I'm gonna be kicking myself, don't
you? :-P
Jennie Kermode
> Boy, I dunno about this one. This strikes me as part of a general
> post-'60s backlash that's gone on so long (say, the business about long
> hair) that in some areas (the ones I care about, natch) it feels like at
> least a partial reversal. Sometimes it seems *worse* than
> before--rock'n'roll McCarthyites and such.
People always become loudest and most aggressive when they're
losing. Still, I appreciate that long term changes can offer only
limited consolation for those who have to live with the worst of it
right now.
> True. (OTOH, now I'm feeling a little stoopid for not having thought of
> it this way. OT3rdH, where does it start? It's almost as if it all has
> to happen at once to have any effect at all.)
Often it takes enough people getting pissed off at once. But
you never know until you try.
> Of course, the usual tactic for men who find themselves in that
> position is to cut their hair in order to "fit in".
Sure it is - so you might actually find guys in the clubs who
share you aesthetic preferences and related philosophies but who simply
haven't felt brave enough to express them directly. Guys who might be
beautiful, given more confidence and a couple of years to grow their
hair back.
> (I've always wondered: If all the people who decided they had to fit in
> stood their ground instead, what would the world look like? Surely it'd
> be a world where people didn't feel that need so intensely.)
There's a new film out just now, 'Surrogates', which looks at
these issues. It's not the smartest wasp in the nest but it does raise
some interesting points and it certainly got people talking in the
audience I went to see it with. The idea is that people lock themselves
in their rooms and do everything in public life through android
surrogate bodies, like physical role playing game avatars.
> Hmm. Maybe--it's just that non-clones think of clones as conformists
> who wouldn't have us there in the first place.
Some people are arseholes wherever you go. This can be worse
in populations where conforming means more because it's a precious
opportunity to people who couldn't do it where they grew up.
> Lots of clone-ness is born of an attempt to "squarify" gayness,
> IYKWIM, the better to make it "safer" and more "acceptable".
Sure. The "now I realise they're just like us" model, which
never takes into account how multiform and various the 'us' really is.
> You realize that if any of this works I'm gonna be kicking myself, don't
> you? :-P
Heh. If it works then, with any luck, you'll have a
consolation prize.
Panurge
Re-reading this, the thought strikes me that this is OK after all if
"just like us" means "human".
Certainly we know we're all different, so what could "just like us"
really mean (if not "just like us"?) It might be a sort of shorthand
for "not defective". Or "integratable". Or "worthy of the same level
of respect to which everyone else is entitled".
Joseph Brenner
Jennie Kermode wrote:
> I've been wondering about this, and I want to make it clear
> that I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious: what is it about
> male bodies that's attractive?
> There must be people here who are attracted to masculine men.
> What is it about them that makes them physically appealing? I would very
> much like to understand.
I can't help very much with this one via introspection, because
I'm not really attracted to men's bodies. I would say I tend to
like them better if their disguised as women's bodies, which is
to say I'm not particularly queer or bisexual, I'm just a
straight pervert.
But when you start talking about "men's bodies disguised as
women's bodies", you quickly get into the bigger questions begged
by this deceptively simple one -- what, really is male and
female, and to what extent are our perceptions of them learned or
innate.
For the record, I'm of the definite opinion that on the
nature-nurture question, nearly all of us have the dial cranked
too far in the "nature" direction. Biology is important in
understanding sexual matters, but it's by no means the sole
determinant of what we find sexual attractive... the people who
think that it is seem terribly ignorant both of history and of
other cultures, because the definition of beauty clearly varies
for other times and places.
(Obviously men are attracted to women in tight black latex
outfits because of their superior child-bearing characteristics.
And throughout pre-history, it's reasonable to suppose that
latex-fetishists were much better at subduing mastodons.)
You don't have to dig very far into our perception of femininity
to see that women:
(a) are allowed/required a greater range of tools in modifying
their appearence... I would say it's almost a definition of the
feminine for us: women's bodies are regarded as malleable, just
*trying* to modify your appearence is a feminine thing to do;
(b) there are tighter standards for the way women are supposed to
look than there are for men. The faces of actresses are
increasingly generic, but male actors range from Johnny Depp to
Schwarzenegger.
Anyway, as I think I've mentioned before, one of my favorite
writers is Samuel R. Delany, a queer man who clearly really,
really likes "masculine" male bodies. His particular fetish is
for "ugly" hands -- he finds beat-up, rough-looking, calloused,
nail-bitten hands to be tremendously erotic. It's hard to see
how you could shrug that off as a man liking what he's supposed
to like: you can find an obsession with, say, men's pectorals out
there in the media, but hands are well off the screen.
There's that gay male subculture that fetishies "bears":
broad-shouldered, big-gut, hairy body. We might speculate that
this is a matter of making-do with what they can get, but I'm not
sure that's entirely relevant -- myself, I think it's possible to
"learn" a fetish, it might even be possible to eroticize any
arbitrary stimulus if you really wanted to work on it. It's not
so easy to say if an attraction to something is "authentic".
But backing up a bit (insert your own pun): it would seem that
"straight' men do like looking at men's bodies more than they're
entirely conscious of... as I remember it there was one of those
studies that measured erotic responses to pornography that showed
that men in general really like looking at erections (and indeed
a lot of "straight" porn looks like queer porn in disguise,
e.g. women pointing their tongues in the direction of erect
penises).
Gerard Jones in "Men of Tomorrow" argues that super-hero comics
arose out of an worship of men's physiques, beginning with the
McFadden empire of body building magazines, followed by things
like the Tarzan comic strip (that featured meticulous drawings of
a thoroughly ripped Tarzan in loin cloth swinging about, diving,
wrestling, etc).
As for watching the way other women behave toward me, there are
some discernible patterns in when they're more likely to come on
to me. They like seeing me with my hair down (long, thick,
unruly, dirty blond hair), they like seeing me in t-shirts
(rather than in the long-sleeve shirts I usually wear over the
tees), and it would seem that they like it when I've been doing
physical work (either they're impressed by my strength, or
attracted by the sweat, or some combination). Of course, there's
no reason to assume that *all* women like this stuff... the vast
majority of women don't come on to me.
But when you start asking questions like this:
> My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
> expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
> sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
> imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires. What makes
> a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed, so
> are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
> something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
> well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
> appeals to them?
It's exceedingly difficult to come up with a solid answer.
You can do cross-cultural studies, I suppose, and see if
penis-size preference increases with exposure to pornography.
Good luck administering the survey...
Are you assuming that a sexual desire that's not solely determined by
biology must be inauthentic?
Peter H. Coffin
> On 2009-10-26, Joseph Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> For the record, I'm of the definite opinion that on the
>> nature-nurture question, nearly all of us have the dial cranked too
>> far in the "nature" direction.
>
> Probably. Then again, my experience with trans and intersex
> people suggests that there are certain things which really are down
> to nature, and perhaps unfashionably so. For instance, people these
> days generally hate to thik that they're shaped by their hormones,
> with women's generally higher oestrogen levels and men's generally
> higher testosterone levels shaping different personality types - yet
> those of us who've experienced shifting doses of hormones pretty
> much universally agree that they do have that effect. When I was
> first treated with oestrogens I found myself experiencing sexual
> jealousy, something which had never happened to me before, and my
> anxiety levels shot up, and I actually found myself spontaneously
> crying during sad scenes in films (desperately embarrassing for a
> critic). It didn't suit me at all and I was very glad to be able
> to quit (in due time), but it gave me a much greater respect for
> women, realising that they're experiencing the world in ways I hadn't
> imagined, and it has made me very interested in the way many women
> embrace those differences and find positive aspects to them (many MTF
> trans friends tell me they find that oestrogen brings them into closer
> touch with their own emotions and gives them a richer awareness of
> the world). At present I have unregulated testosterone levels for the
> first time in twenty years and I feel great, much more myself, but the
> downside is that I have a short temper and am much more aggressive -
> I think I've punched or thrown something electronic pretty much every
> day for the past week despite a rational aversion to such behaviour.
> My sex drive is much stronger but that's not necessarily a good thing
> for my relationship. I'm more confident but probably more likely to be
> an arse.
Wow. That seems an almost unimaginably nifty thing to have experienced,
but probably a pretty sucky thing to experience in the now, as it were.
>> Biology is important in understanding sexual matters, but it's by no
>> means the sole determinant of what we find sexual attractive...
>
> Fwiw, I've never found that changes in my hormonal maleness
> or femaleness have made much difference to my sexual object choice or
> what I want to do in bed. I reckon that's either socialised or wired
> somewhere else (probably a bit of both).
This kind of fits with a pet model in my head that whom one wants
to fuck and how is a lot more fixed that what one finds arousing.
"Arousing" is trainable, builds on experience and imagination, becomes
one's porn; that's the nurture. The actual sex part, how (penetrating,
being penetrated, both, neither (something else)) and with whom (men,
women, either, stuffy-toys), seems weighted a lot more in the "nature"
part. The linking of "arousing" and [I need another word here] causes a
lot of the "conflict" between "nature" and "nurture". Let loose what
turns someone on from who they want to fuck, and things make a good deal
more sense.
--
The plural of datum is not "facts".
A collection of facts is not "knowledge".
moonglow minnow
[...]
> intersex doesn't necessarily mean partly male and partly female but can
> mean bodies take forms which look like something different again.
That. That's something that I haven't been able to put into words
properly, but that I find immensely attractive. I adore how maleness and
femaleness combined often melds into something entirely different from
either, and that something is frequently *really* attractive to me.
Huh, I have an intersex plus trans fetish. Go figure.
> Probably. Then again, my experience with trans and intersex
> people suggests that there are certain things which really are down to
> nature, and perhaps unfashionably so. For instance, people these days
> generally hate to thik that they're shaped by their hormones,
I'm struggling with low sex hormone levels all around, and I feel like
*shit*. My confidence is low even when I rationally know that I'm really
good at something, there's a disconnect with emotions that aren't fear
based, and though I can appreciate the human form aesthetically, there's
no sexual desire at all, which just leaves me disappointed, or worse I
find myself repelled by what once attracted me.
Japanese rope bondage is still beautiful, at least.
Maeve >^..^<
TenshiKurai9
> On 2009-10-26, Joseph Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> look than there are for men. The faces of actresses are
>> increasingly generic, but male actors range from Johnny Depp to
>> Schwarzenegger.
>
> cannot tell many leading actresses apart. They have this sort of Generic
> Blonde thing going on; it's very boring. Women can be beautiful in so
> many differenmt ways - and interesting in still more - yet we always
> seem to see the same body, the same face. And it makes no sense when the
> hero of a film is supposed to find the heroine more beautiful than any
> other woman ever, yet she's a fucking clone.
I now want to make a film where the male hero repeatedly attempts to
save "the girl" only to find-out he repeatedly saves a wrong clone.
-TenshiKurai9, wonders about what her hormonal balance is like.
Octavian
> On 2009-11-05, Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> (b) there are tighter standards for the way women are supposed to
> >> look than there are for men. The faces of actresses are
> >> increasingly generic, but male actors range from Johnny Depp to
> >> Schwarzenegger.
>
> > I find this a big problem in my line of work. I honestly
> > cannot tell many leading actresses apart. They have this sort of Generic
> > Blonde thing going on; it's very boring. Women can be beautiful in so
> > many differenmt ways - and interesting in still more - yet we always
> > seem to see the same body, the same face. And it makes no sense when the
> > hero of a film is supposed to find the heroine more beautiful than any
> > other woman ever, yet she's a fucking clone.
>
> I now want to make a film where the male hero repeatedly attempts to
> save "the girl" only to find-out he repeatedly saves a wrong clone.
>
> -TenshiKurai9, wonders about what her hormonal balance is like.
Just like Mario... :)
~Octavian
Joseph Brenner
Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Joseph Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I'm not really attracted to men's bodies. I would say I tend to
>> like them better if their disguised as women's bodies, which is
>> to say I'm not particularly queer or bisexual, I'm just a
>> straight pervert.
>
> Well, yes - that's similar to my own position, except that I
> can also find men attractive without their clothes if they're a
> sufficiently feminine shape.
>
>> what, really is male and female, and to what extent are our
>> perceptions of them learned or innate.
>
> I tend to use them as reference points rather than absolutes,
> rather the way the Chinese conceptualise yin and yang;
Fair enough. (Anyone who claims they've got an grasp of anything
absolute is automatically suspect, of course.)
> but then, when talking about intersexuality, I often have to explain
> to people that intersex doesn't necessarily mean partly male and
> partly female but can mean bodies take forms which look like something
> different again.
Try a different term? altersexed? (I don't think "intersexed" is really
in general use, compared to "hermaphrodite".)
>> For the record, I'm of the definite opinion that on the nature-nurture
>> question, nearly all of us have the dial cranked too far in the
>> "nature" direction.
>
> Probably. Then again, my experience with trans and intersex
> people suggests that there are certain things which really are down to
> nature, and perhaps unfashionably so. For instance, people these days
> generally hate to thik that they're shaped by their hormones, with
> women's generally higher oestrogen levels and men's generally higher
> testosterone levels shaping different personality types - yet those of
> us who've experienced shifting doses of hormones pretty much universally
> agree that they do have that effect. When I was first treated with
> oestrogens I found myself experiencing sexual jealousy, something which
> had never happened to me before, and my anxiety levels shot up, and I
> actually found myself spontaneously crying during sad scenes in films
> (desperately embarrassing for a critic).
(Hm... you could play that up, though... the critic who cares.)
> It didn't suit me at all and I was very glad to be able to quit (in due
> time), but it gave me a much greater respect for women, realising that
> they're experiencing the world in ways I hadn't imagined, and it has
> made me very interested in the way many women embrace those differences
> and find positive aspects to them (many MTF trans friends tell me they
> find that oestrogen brings them into closer touch with their own
> emotions and gives them a richer awareness of the world). At present I
> have unregulated testosterone levels for the first time in twenty years
> and I feel great, much more myself, but the downside is that I have a
> short temper and am much more aggressive - I think I've punched or
> thrown something electronic pretty much every day for the past week
> despite a rational aversion to such behaviour. My sex drive is much
> stronger but that's not necessarily a good thing for my
> relationship. I'm more confident but probably more likely to be an arse.
This is all really interesting of course (and actually, it reminds me of
an odd scene in Schismatrix, where the two main characters trade each
others worldview's temporarily, by shooting up simulations of the other
person's hormones).
But I don't deny that there are genuinely biological aspects of human
behavior in play, I just think that we're in a phase we're we like to
exaggerate them, and ignore the way our cultural attitudes work with
the biology.
In what you've been through, you've got a glimpse of some of the
biological effects, but you don't know what it would be like to grow up
with those hormones... (I have a theory that many older women have the
converse problem... they've suddenly got a biological mix where "male"
hormones are more dominant, but they haven't learned to moderate their
agressiveness, and so on... so you get the "old battle ax" effect.)
>> Biology is important in understanding sexual matters, but it's by no
>> means the sole determinant of what we find sexual attractive...
>
> Fwiw, I've never found that changes in my hormonal maleness or
> femaleness have made much difference to my sexual object choice or what
> I want to do in bed. I reckon that's either socialised or wired
> somewhere else (probably a bit of both).
But wired where else? My first thought would be that it's socialized...
I suppose -- in keeping with what I was saying above -- it could be
a mental attitude produced by the prolonged hormonal state you've
grown up with.
> Earlier in this thread I was discussing the things about
> femaleness which make it attractive to me and differ from
> characteristics I'd usually expect to find in males. I should add that
> this doesn't really stop with body shape. There are other
> characteristics which are socially associated with femininity which I
> find appealing - good grooming; a certain kind of tenderness and
> vulnerability that goes along with being open to experience; a
> willingness to express emotion openly; and a certain sort of
> lightheartedness. There's a lot of masculine bullshit I have no time
> for, but I do find the socially feminine characteristics of
> self-deprecation and cultivated insecurity infuriating.
I'm afraid a lot of women strike me as having an inclination to fly
off the handle in a crisis (I could call this "hysterics" if I
wanted to be offensive about it). Women like to talk-up their
greater emotional sensitivity and so on, but for a lot of them it
seems to give them a knack for making bad situations worse (albeit
more dramatic).
None of that is to deny that "masculine bullshit" exists (the worst
from my point of view is the compulsion to act like you know what
you're talking about at all times, even in the face of obvious
contrary evidence).
>> (a) are allowed/required a greater range of tools in modifying
>> their appearence... I would say it's almost a definition of the
>> feminine for us: women's bodies are regarded as malleable, just
>> *trying* to modify your appearence is a feminine thing to do;
>
> It's part of the definition of goth, too, isn't it? Probably
> part of why I find male goths more attractive than other men.
Sure. Along with a sense of sexual ambiguity.
>> (b) there are tighter standards for the way women are supposed to
>> look than there are for men. The faces of actresses are
>> increasingly generic, but male actors range from Johnny Depp to
>> Schwarzenegger.
>
> I find this a big problem in my line of work. I honestly
> cannot tell many leading actresses apart.
You too, eh? Luckily I'm not in the business of trying to keep
track of them.
> They have this sort of Generic Blonde thing going on; it's very
> boring. Women can be beautiful in so many different ways - and
> interesting in still more - yet we always seem to see the same body,
> the same face. And it makes no sense when the hero of a film is
> supposed to find the heroine more beautiful than any other woman
> ever, yet she's a fucking clone.
We were just watching "Gold Diggers in Paris" (a very minor musical
comedy that pretends to be a Busby Berkeley movie, but isn't really [1])--
Dangerbaby commented on the variety of the women in the chorus...
they're all pretty, but all have there own identities, even though
they've got very few speaking lines.
>> Anyway, as I think I've mentioned before, one of my favorite
>> writers is Samuel R. Delany, a queer man who clearly really,
>> really likes "masculine" male bodies.
>
> Aye; I do like his work, and I find interesting the way that
> his passion comes across even when I can't relate to it. I had the
> pleasure of meeting him when he visited Glasgow back in 1995. He's one
> of those people whom one only has to speak with for an instant to
> observe as an unusual intellect.
Yes, certainly... though personally I've never had much luck
actually speaking with him. The first time, back in the mid-80s,
I was trying to tell him how great "Stars in My Pocket" was and
he immediately replied "Well, flattery will get you everywhere..."
(and imagine if I'd met him a few years later in my rock climbing
phase, with scabs all over my hands).
Once my brother Ed tried to speak in defense of Romanticism with
him, and Delany's response wasn't really that scintillating...
it was something like a argumentum-ad-polical correctness
(Romanticism is bad, you see, because it has something to do with
Romans).
>> But backing up a bit (insert your own pun): it would seem that
>> "straight' men do like looking at men's bodies more than they're
>> entirely conscious of...
>
> I expect that some of it has to do with how they fetishise
> their own bodies. In my experience, most people find it easier to become
> aroused if they feel desirable, not just if they have access to someone
> else whom they desire. This is a little trickier for men as they don't
> have access to the same acceptable culture of object-ness as women do.
Yeah, true enough I suppose.
There's something funny going on with this issue, though... pretty
much everyone learns to orgasm in contact with a body of their own
gender. So, the amount of energy that goes into the attitude that
men are supposed to find men's bodies repulsive is really remarkable.
> I've found that quite a number of men enjoy pornographic images of women
> who are similar to themselves in terms of their facial appearance and
> build, and would speculate that there's a connection there (it would
> certainly be an interesting area to study); most often these women seem
> to be posed in ways that would enable identification-with rather than
> identification-as-other.
Interesting... once again I don't think I could help much via
introspection, the kind of women I think are attractive are all over
the map. I suppose I often think women are interesting if they're
dressed the way I usually dress (combat pants, leather --
I traditionally have problems with falling for lesbians).
>> Are you assuming that a sexual desire that's not solely determined by
>> biology must be inauthentic?
>
> Not at all. I'm not really concerned with authenticity -
> I just wonder how things work, at whatever level.
It seemed to me that the question was "do people *really* like that
stuff, or do they just think they're supposed to?"
[1] One odd feature of "Gold Diggers in Paris": it has an only
slightly disguised suspension bondage scene. The male lead
walks in on the female lead when she's gotten herself stuck
dangling up at the ceiling, harnessed into a safety gadget
for learning acrobatic tricks.
moonglow minnow
> Lately I've been engaged in much public discussion over the
> notion that transsexuals can never get away from the legacy of their
> birth-assigned-gendered childhoods - part of the defence of the
> exclusionary womyn-born-womyn feminists. There's generally a recognition
> among trans women, for instance, that they do differ from other women in
> not having been raised as girls, but that doesn't mean they really grew
> up as boys. I'm working on the concept of a trans childhood, something
> trans people of all kinds have in common (and which a number of
> feminists may also have encountered to an extent) - the experience of
> growing up not fitting the standard gender system, which is a sort of
> gendering in itself.
Thinking about this, I wonder how much of my gender identity was formed
by my being raised with the expectations of acting like a boy, or at
least a tomboy, when I wanted to be a *girl*. Neither of my parents
really understood girly things, and for my father at least I was his
last hope (in that relationship) of having the son he wanted. Added to
that was the pressure that both of my sisters were tomboys. I rebelled
as a teenager by growing my hair out, and I still feel more like me in
the dreams where I have long hair again. But I'd love to have a (fully
functional and detatchable) penis, I can't understand feminine social
politics, and it's rare when I really understand oo relate to someone
who isn't at least a little genderqueer.
Maeve >^..^< gender-confused
Satori
Interesting. My parents didn't try to gender me either way, and my dad
was very much of the philosophy of not pushing things on me that I
didn't like. My dad liked football, but I wasn't particularly interested
in it, so he neither made me watch it, nor made me do the "throw the
football around the yard" thing that a lot of boys get. So I wasn't a
specifically feminine child - I didn't play with dolls or things like
that. My main interest as a kid was outer space, so my toys tended to be
along those lines, which is not atypical for a boy. But since I wasn't
enculturated in sports culture, I was still targeted as a "sissy" and
therefore potentially "gay" by my peer group.
I never really understood boy culture, though. It took me a very long
time to understand that boys (or men) teasing each other was a game. I'd
feel personally targeted, and over-react. Which of course brought on
more and worse teasing, because by over-reacting I lost the game.
I still don't get the dynamics of that quite right. I'll occasionally
take a joking comment far too seriously. And when I attempt to joke
around with other guys, I sometimes don't know when to stop.
But I've never really questioned my sex. I'm male, my body is masculine
enough that I couldn't pass, and the idea of changing my body isn't
something I've ever seriously considered. And I think of my gender as
androgynous, rather than specifically feminine. So I'm probably male by
nature, but somewhere in between by nurture.
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhg0og7.58g...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> The way I see it,
> things only get confused when we try to fit all the wonderful variety of
> humanity into two small boxes.
>
Sounds very much like when 'we' split the atom, thinking well there's two
charges and a neutral,
and now we've discovered all these extra particals that exist.
The Ghost of Fascinet Present
<...>
>
> My main interest as a kid was outer space, so my toys tended to be
> along those lines, which is not atypical for a boy. But since I wasn't
> enculturated in sports culture, I was still targeted as a "sissy" and
> therefore potentially "gay" by my peer group.
>
<...>
I've heard this stuff before, but I think you're missing something. I
stopped caring about sports after I moved to Denver and before I
entered junior high, and moved straight on to amateur explosives
development. I'd been reading science fiction and fantasy since the
start of grade school, and I made no secret of it. I was certainly
socially awkward, or at least felt that way.
The jocks never touched me or teased me past eighth grade, it must
have been. I don't remember it from before that, and definitely not
after.
There's something else about you that made you a target.
-F
Dark Phoenix
"The Ghost of Fascinet Present" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:608635e6-c337-4ace...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I've heard this stuff before, but I think you're missing something. I
stopped caring about sports after I moved to Denver and before I
entered junior high, and moved straight on to amateur explosives
development. I'd been reading science fiction and fantasy since the
start of grade school, and I made no secret of it. I was certainly
socially awkward, or at least felt that way.
The jocks never touched me or teased me past eighth grade, it must
have been. I don't remember it from before that, and definitely not
after.
There's something else about you that made you a target.
***************
Er, I think the jocks might have been deterred by the 'amateur explosives
development'. The prospect of having one's locker blow up in one's face
tends to get a person's attention.
--
Laurie Brown, Dark Phoenix
dark_p...@netw.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/103910/laurie_brown.html
"To destroy the Western tradition of independent thought, it is not
necessary to burn books. All we have to do is leave them unread for a couple
of generations."
--Robert Maynard Hutchens.
Endymion
> "Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:slrnhg0og7.58g...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>
> > The way I see it,
> > things only get confused when we try to fit all the wonderful variety of
> > humanity into two small boxes.
>
> Sounds very much like when 'we' split the atom, thinking well there's two
> charges and a neutral,
> and now we've discovered all these extra particals that exist.
Yes, but there are many, many purposes for which using those basic
classifications entirely suffices and getting bogged down with
unnecessary further detail is a waste of time. If you're asked on
which stretch of track a train leaving Miami and traveling north at 40
mph will pass a train leaving New York and traveling south at 30 mph,
trying to account for relativistic effects is pointless and brings
about neither a better understanding nor a more accurate answer to the
problem, even though those effects do in fact exist at those speeds.
The fact that the classifications are not complete and do not include
every detail doesn't mean they're useful or invalid.
Binary sex classification is the same way. If you want to know which
high school band members, sailors, or prison inmates are capable of
impregnating which other band members, sailors, or inmates if they
room together with inadequate supervision, male-or-female is the only
relevant or necessary information in 99.5% of cases. The exceptions by
no means swallow the rule, they're just frequently used to obfuscate
the rule by people who don't like the social and political
implications often drawn from the rule.[1] To my mind this is at least
as irrational as creationism.
You see the same situation but often a reversal of positions with
people who insist on the proposition that homosexuality is a binary
genetic trait - or entirely a learned trait - against the weight of
all the evidence, simply because they don't like the social and
political conclusions some people might reach from the real facts.
Again, creationists. But at least the actual creationists are honest
enough to admit that they reject science and base their world-view on
other foundations.
[1] Mostly, but not exclusively, the social expectations based on sex,
and the idea that anyone whose secondary and socially derived[2]
sexual characteristics are not completely and unambiguously aligned
with their sex is somehow defective (or in circles like this one,
superior). A man with a pronouncedly androgynous body or persona is
not a failed or defective man, but he's also not intersexed on that
basis alone. If he's got one Y chromosome and anatomically normal and
fully functional male genitalia, he's a man and not a woman, and a
slender build and relative lack of body hair don't change that. If he
likes wearing dresses and drives an Outback and hates football and
blowing shit up and is generally attracted to more or less butch
women, he's not a lesbian trapped in a man's body, he's a man trapped
in a society that makes social demands based on sex that he feels are
unreasonable.
[2] That is, gender, but that term has become so loaded that it's
generally more of a hindrance than an aid to rational understanding.
- Endymion
whisky-dave
"Endymion" <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb48bac5-8777-40ff...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 8:21 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> "Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> messagenews:slrnhg0og7.58g...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>
> > The way I see it,
> > things only get confused when we try to fit all the wonderful variety of
> > humanity into two small boxes.
>
> Sounds very much like when 'we' split the atom, thinking well there's two
> charges and a neutral,
> and now we've discovered all these extra particals that exist.
}Yes, but there are many, many purposes for which using those basic
}classifications entirely suffices and getting bogged down with
}unnecessary further detail is a waste of time.
yes as I was saying a month or two ago, no one really gives a shit in the
music industry
that doesn;t mean peole aren't curious but everyones equal, well as equal as
they can be,
but in sport we divide people in two two main classes male and female.
Recently we have a person winning a womens running event beating all other
women by quite a margin and the last I heard was that sie was a
hermaphrodite.
So do we ban these people from sport ?
Do we set up a new Olympics like we have with the paraplegic[1], Gay
olympics.,
and now the hermaphrodite olympics. ?
When will we have olympics for those that don;t want to train or excersie or
compete but
see it as a human right to win a gold at the olympics.
Of course I couldn't care less, if hermaphrodites win all the golds in the
female olympic
events after all gold/1st is awarded to the fastest[2] runner etc on the
day, except we have
seperate events for the sex that just can't compete[3] against the superior
sex/gender
of which I of course belong ;-)
[1] Not that I don;t think this is a good idea but we';ve seen the problems
when someone
gets artifical legs that are faster at running than those that haven't
artifical legs.
[2] Without the add of performing enhancing drugs
[3] Generally speaking in most events, except nagging
Octavian
> "Endymion" <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
I think we should have cross-gender olympics and not care what the
gender is and just let people train :)
whisky-dave
"Dark Phoenix" <dark_p...@netw.com> wrote in message
news:9ridncxoPdl9m5_W...@povn.com...
>
> "The Ghost of Fascinet Present" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:608635e6-c337-4ace...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I've heard this stuff before, but I think you're missing something. I
> stopped caring about sports after I moved to Denver and before I
> entered junior high, and moved straight on to amateur explosives
> development. I'd been reading science fiction and fantasy since the
> start of grade school, and I made no secret of it. I was certainly
> socially awkward, or at least felt that way.
>
> The jocks never touched me or teased me past eighth grade, it must
> have been. I don't remember it from before that, and definitely not
> after.
>
> There's something else about you that made you a target.
>
> ***************
> Er, I think the jocks might have been deterred by the 'amateur explosives
> development'. The prospect of having one's locker blow up in one's face
> tends to get a person's attention.
Yes I think the idea of communicating in a language a person can understand
is a good idea. I thuink a lot of bulling cases can be solved quite easily
by using such an approach it worked for me, but some think talking or doing
nothing
is the best approach. it';s a shame when some suffer because others think a
more 'PC'
appoach will work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8347473.stm
I wonder if they'll ever be any *proper* reseach done in to this.
whisky-dave
"Octavian" <octa...@silvermoondesigns.org> wrote in message
news:e9677a88-1b9b-4931...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yep, train compete win or lose, but everyone is equal ;-)
The Fascinet Hope
> "Dark Phoenix" <dark_phoe...@netw.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9ridncxoPdl9m5_W...@povn.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Ghost of Fascinet Present" <fasci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
Ah, the innocent and murderous ways of youth.
This brings back memories.
-F
ags...@yahoo.com
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
> > My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
> > expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
> > sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
> > imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires. What makes
> > a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed, so
> > are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
> > something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
> > well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
> > appeals to them?
>
> It's exceedingly difficult to come up with a solid answer.
> You can do cross-cultural studies, I suppose, and see if
> penis-size preference increases with exposure to pornography.
> Good luck administering the survey...
>
> Are you assuming that a sexual desire that's not solely determined by
> biology must be inauthentic?
It's very simple. Women are attracted to men for two reasons:
1. Physical attraction. The perfect male body.
2. Emotional commitment. The woman is so into who you are that they
over-look the physical features.
Jennie Kermode
> yes as I was saying a month or two ago, no one really gives a shit in the
> music industry that doesn;t mean peole aren't curious but everyones
> equal, well as equal as they can be,
In the mainstream music industry, everyone is equitably
treated like shit, is the general rule.
> [1] Not that I don;t think this is a good idea but we';ve seen the problems
> when someone gets artifical legs that are faster at running than those
> that haven't artifical legs.
In the case I believe you're referring to, it was determined
that legs didn't provide an advantage - he just actually was a better
runner than his competitors.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
TenshiKurai9
> It's the only approach I know of that works with bullies, and
> generally one only has to do it once. Find the ringleader and subject
> hir to a single dramatic act of vilence, the more unpredictable the
> better. Of course, one can end up being called a psycho and avoided, but
> it's better than being beaten regularly.
If you're physically unable to, then there's a bit of a problem.
When I was in 9th grade and was bullied by an 8th grader on the bus,
there were times I wished I had just taken my heavy back pack and
slammed it into his body repeatedly. I'm pretty sure my complete lack
of a history of trouble-making and the degree of violence in comparsion
would have gotten me treated more as a sign of in need of help rather
than suspension/expulsion. Damn it. Missed my shot.
-TenshiKurai9, an over-crowded late bus, the guy making sounds, and how
many people had no compunction in ratting him out when the bus driver
wanted to know who that was. I wasn't the only person who didn't like
him.
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhgiqpk.6g9...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2009-11-19, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> Yes I think the idea of communicating in a language a person can
>> understand
>> is a good idea. I thuink a lot of bulling cases can be solved quite
>> easily
>> by using such an approach it worked for me
>
> generally one only has to do it once. Find the ringleader and subject
> hir to a single dramatic act of vilence, the more unpredictable the
> better. Of course, one can end up being called a psycho and avoided, but
> it's better than being beaten regularly.
> who has already done this.
yes true, my only worry with this approach is it's a little bit like
religion as it
uses the threat of something bad happening to stop you doing X or Y.
Not that I'd mind creating my own religion :-D
>> I wonder if they'll ever be any *proper* reseach done in to this.
>
> What approach would you suggest?
Well with current restrictions one would be limited to investigating past
crimes
with their repective punishments to access the succsess rate of the applied
punishment.
You could have all sorts of fun with stats from succsess rates to wrongful
convictions.
Setting up ones own experiment would be even more fun, but I guess it would
need
to be overseen and I suppose we'd have to have some true huggin hippy to
review ethical
arguments and dilemmas, but slip him 1/2 Oz of Afgan black and that should
keep
him occupied for a few days ;-)
whisky-dave
What about the advantage of not have latic acid problems in the lower calf
muscles that
'normal' sprinters have to contend with, how and he has no "Achilles heel to
worry about either ;-)
But at �15k a pair well what happens when somes designs a more efficient
pair at �30k
we already have the problems with those special swim suits and that's quite
an easy one to solve,
either ban them or let everyone that wants to wear them.
whisky-dave
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f8b01ea-bed3-47d7...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 26, 10:37 am, Joseph Brenner <d...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
> > My big difficulty is that I can't tell what's genuine in the
> > expressions of lust voiced by straight women and gay men, and what is a
> > sort of playing to type, a shared currency of lascivious talk and
> > imagery which might not have much to do with genuine desires. What makes
> > a desirable penis, for instance, is clearly culturally constructed, so
> > are there really people who are attracted to penises, or is it just
> > something people pretend to be attracted to (perhaps to themselves as
> > well as to others) when it's really some other aspect of maleness that
> > appeals to them?
>
> It's exceedingly difficult to come up with a solid answer.
> You can do cross-cultural studies, I suppose, and see if
> penis-size preference increases with exposure to pornography.
> Good luck administering the survey...
>
> Are you assuming that a sexual desire that's not solely determined by
> biology must be inauthentic?
}It's very simple. Women are attracted to men for two reasons:
Crap, as you've forgotten money and power.
Not all women of course but I'd say quite a significant proportion are
seriously
influenced by either money, power or both.
Owning a chocolate factory might work too.