Hourglass Figures Affect Men's Brains Like a Drug

[n2doc]

By Charles Q. Choi, LiveScience Contributor
posted: 22 February 2010 05:29 pm ET

Watching a curvaceous woman can feel like a reward in the brain of men, much as drinking alcohol or taking drugs might, research now reveals.

These new findings might help explain the preoccupation men can have toward pornography, scientists added.


Shapely hips in women are linked with fertility and overall health. As such, it makes sense evolutionarily speaking that studies across cultures have shown men typically find hourglass figures sexy.

To explore the roots of this behavior, researchers had 14 men, average age 25, rate how attractive they found pictures of the naked derrieres of seven women before and after cosmetic surgery that gave them more shapely hips. These operations did not reduce weight but just redistributed it, by implanting fat harvested from the waists into the buttocks.

more

http://www.livescience.com/culture/hourglass-figures-drug-brain-100222.html

[polpilot]

Tiger researched this already. Old news.

[benld74]

1. SMall hourglass figures on my LCD screen DRIVE ME NUTS!!!

[panader0]

2. It's not watching that can feel like a reward

Just watching can be stressful.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. This is NEWS?

[The Sushi Bandit]

15. i think this is general discussion

news is in another folder.

[Contrary1]

4. And my own figure affects men's brains like Sominex.

;)

[undeterred]

5. Inflatable doll

[seabeyond]

6. why dont we ever have studies of the guys with small penis, and then later with huge ones

for women to judge

i wonder.....

or guys with shrunkin chest vs guys with muscular chest

or guy that are bald or hair loss to the guys with full set of hair

or guys with paunch and guys without

or any other fuckin studies on guys.... besides what hey want with the female body

[Zywiec]

7. Is there anything stopping someone from doing a study like that?

:shrug:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. Yes, really......tell us something we don't already know.

Dear Seabeyond, as far as penes...

It's like Goldilocks:

Small -- too little

Large -- too big

Average -- just right.

If I was a six and a half foot tall Amazon, I might have different opinions....

[seabeyond]

10. IF you are speaking for all women, then yes, maybe we do need a study.... nt

[trackfan]

137. Thanks for the correct Latin plural!

I don't think I've ever seen it on the internet.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

163. You're Welcome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D :D :D
I took two years of Latin in high school because the paternal unit and the grandmother unit had taken it, and they insisted I take it. Sure helped later in law school.
I picked up Greek from getting a BA in Biology, and being a court reporter and typing up medical terminology from experts in law suits.


Others: Pelves, uteri, sequelae.

Greek words & plurals people have problems with: criterion(sing.), criteria(pl), medium(sing), media (pl), helix (sing.), helices (pl), vortex (sing.), vortices (pl).

I have heard medical school professors, who SHOULD know better, say AP-nea, when it's actually
a-(not) pnea-breath.

It is NOT "Sleep AP-nea"!!!

Apoptosis - A-po- tosis -the second p is silent as part of -pt from Greek.

As in pterodactyl.

AGGGHHHH! :banghead:

All this education. Instead of saying "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?" you can say, "Is your corpora cavernosa spongiosum turgid"???

[Fumesucker]

12. Eh, or guys with fat wallets versus guys with thin ones..

[seabeyond]

19. that is the tired and old they always do with women. the studies that lack are physical attributes

and effect on women that they have over and over and over with men but never the woman

[Fumesucker]

34. Tired and old but no less true..

All you really have to do is look at the covers of romance novels, the publishers know their customer base.

[seabeyond]

37. most of the covers are of naked guys, lol. that talks wallet to you? nt

[Fumesucker]

41. Eh, I meant the physical part that you were complaining about is not researched..

I suspect the romance novel publishers have indeed researched the physical types that women like..

And they're usually only about half naked from what little I've seen.

[RainDog]

16. we already know women selected for men with larger-than-needed penises

our foremothers, in their infinite mercy and sense of play, seem to have selected for human males to have more between their legs than just sperm capsules.

(hey, gay guys, you can thank us for that, okay?)

the size of the male scrotum/penis in primates indicates the level of monogamy in a species over the long haul.

gorillas, with harems, have leeeeeetle bittie peni and scrotum. chimpanzees have peni that are larger, in relation to body mass, than gorillas. and the homo sapien has the biggest penis of all among the three in relation to body size.

as goldilocks said, it was juuuuust right.

so, whatever men might want to say about women, looking back at evolutionary history, they have women to thank for their beloved penis in all its glory.

you're welcome, guys.

[seabeyond]

20. funny. but who says larger than needed. how about larger than needed breasts

nah... we dont say that. just yum

so i am sayin

[RainDog]

23. the size "needed" is determined by

whether or not the sperm can fertilize the egg.

the minimum size of the human.. oops, first wrote male... penis is larger than is necessary to impregnate a female.

the size of a scrotum within a primate population is determined in large part by how monogamous females are. the more monogamous the females the smaller the scrotum because there's not a lot of competition for sperm.

in humans this indicates that females have been somewhat promiscuous throughout the long history of our species.

[seabeyond]

26. hm

wink

thanks.

[dustbunnie]

28. Ah yes, all those promiscuous women with the square jaws. :-D

According to the last study I read, it was the ladies with an abundance of testosterone floating around their bods that have been responsible for all that extra-curricular fooling around. They can be picked out of a crowd apparently, by the shape of the strong jawline.

I'd like to thank them all, past and present, for what they've done for womankind by contributing to the size of the male apparatus. :applause:

[RainDog]

38. I guess that explains my serial monogamy

my jaw just isn't that square. my index and ring finger aren't that much different in terms of ratio so I guess that where the serial comes from. lol

you know, the long history of carnival or feasts, with the peasants in masks dancing in the village has also been presented as a reproductive strategy similar to other primate females...

...because during those times, women with no children would have sex with men other than their husbands and this was a way for women married to sterile men to pass along their genes.

no wonder they wore masks if women have to have lots of testosterone to be more... varied in their choices. it was to hide those mustaches.

:rofl:

[dustbunnie]

71. Heh, heh, interesting you bring up carnival.

At least one of my European relatives has led me to believe that the kind of thing you mention still happens, or did about ten years ago. Couples don the costume and mask, then go their own way for the weekend and nothing is ever talked about. I also remember something about darkened movie theaters. :)

[RainDog]

142. it's a long-standing tradition among Catholic-dominated nations

um, carnival and feast days, I mean. don't know about the random randy thing personally.

...I am in fact anti-religious (see upbringing in fundie south) but I do seem to have a special affection for (former) Catholic men. lol. as in, somehow all my b.fs and my ex were former catholics.

must have been their sense of "fun."

actually the practice pre-dates Catholics - goes way back.

once people were organized into landowner and worker, feast days provided days off. THAT'S why Catholics love them some saints. lol.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

198. "we dont say that"?

I say that. A lot. And I'm sure I'm not the only evil Y chromosome carrier to do so.

Inflated breasts are a turn down. The boob job craze makes me want to :banghead:

[omega minimo]

43. how many have you seen?

:wow:

[RainDog]

44. I sat in classes in the past looking at gorilla and orang peni

but the humans were just drawings, dammit.

it was fun.

don't know how many I saw tho.

[omega minimo]

45. You know there's quite a range, right?

:think:

[RainDog]

46. um, yeah.

that doesn't make the data invalid.

[omega minimo]

47. it just makes

"larger than needed" invalid

[RainDog]

48. well, you can read about yourself and I'd be happy if you wanted to correct the errors

authors who have pointed out that primates with multimale breeding systems have larger scrotums than harem males

Harcourt et al 1981
Smith, 1984
Kenagy and Trombulak, 1986

These authors extended the analyses to penis size
Margulis and Sagan, 1992
and
Verrell, 1992

I can't get to the entire bibliography, but those are starting points.

[carlyhippy]

62. ahh, but sometimes if the small peni in question has an extremely large.....bank account....

a few may overlook this "small" issue.......

[seabeyond]

64. ignore it until the pool guy arrives.... nt

[RainDog]

180. maybe this study indicates women would enjoy sex more if they were more promiscuous

and not that promiscuous women enjoy sex more.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100104114601.htm

The type of sexual stimuli -- their content and how it was presented e.g. visually or as an audio recording -- made no difference to how well the subjective and physiological responses mirrored each other in men. However, it did influence women's responses. Women exposed to a greater range and number of sexual stimuli -- content and presentation -- were more likely to have stronger agreement between subjective and physiological responses.

The timing of the assessment of self-reported sexual arousal also had an effect. When participants were asked to rate their subjective arousal at the end of each stimulus, men's responses were closer to one another than women's. However, when both men and women were asked to rate their arousal whilst they were exposed to the stimulus, the gender difference disappeared because men's concordance dropped to the range of women's.

...and maybe that's because females grow up in cultures that teach them to repress their sexuality and laud women for being ignorant about sex. I read this study and think it indicates a level of dysfunction in a society, related to female sexuality, that causes women to deny their own sexuality.

[FedUpWithIt All]

25. They do those studies as well. They are also facinating, biologically speaking.

Not everything is an insult.

[seabeyond]

30. meh

from my perspective, has nothing to do with insult.

[FedUpWithIt All]

39. The other side...

Study that women typically prefer older men.

http://www.thelocal.se/16116/20081204/

Women prefer facial hair.

http://www.indiajournal.com/pages/event.php?id=3812

Women prefer masculine men when fertile

http://www.livescience.com/health/070412_fertile_women.html

Women prefer deep voices on a man

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/3542897/Women-prefer-men-with-deep-voices-as-it-indicates-virility-and-strength.html

Women more concerned with personality and external grooming than penis size

http://www.livescience.com/health/070601_penis_myths.html

[seabeyond]

40. and per the study,

that women preferred old men, did they take a 20 yr old naked male up against a 50 yr old naked male and watch the difference in the brain scan to see which women prefer

or

did they go the old tired expected way of how women are conditioned in their wants.

[FedUpWithIt All]

51. They are determining factors that initially attract one gender to another.

Waist hip ratio IS visible in everyday life. Men tend to be attracted to this (a great deal of study has gone into this issue). Women tend to be attracted to facial cues (many studies have been done on the reasoning for this as well). Therefore the features of the faces were largely used in the female study.

I just don't get why this is such an issue. All the people, participating in all of these studies which are being done, certainly didn't have an agenda. Are you suggesting that the people behind the studies themselves do? Clearly, they are studying both sides of the gender coin. It would make no sense to deal with penis size in a study that is dealing with initial attraction as the penis is not usually dealt with in initial meetings. Studies of the preferred WHR and overall body appeal in males has been studied just as male attraction studies dealing with female facial cues. Although both of these are less common due to the fact that they are not the main attractor for each gender.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1634963/

The issue is about very old biological cues for reproductive health. Women view (correctly according to some studies) male health in the masculinity of a man's face and men view it unwittingly in a woman's WHR. These cues and the responses to them were actually useful at another stage of our development. Of course in our society, where medicine, diet and science are quite advanced, these cues are largely extraneous as per their original usefulness but biologically humans are slow to change. This does not mean that people must be subject to the whims of their primitive calling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2969391.stm

I think the outrage is misplaced personally.

[seabeyond]

61. this study says men look at face, women crotch

http://www.infoniac.com/science/men-look-at-face-women-look-down-there.html

i know you dont get what i am saying because i have not gone into it.

here alone is the conditioning of it, that is never looked at, yet told is evolutionary, and conclusion made up of guess, and of course(if you read the study) man is, like, drugged and cant help himself, ergo explains, naturally, his addiction to porn and fuckin around on mate (even though women are equally fuckin around on mate and given no excuses but she is a bitch). then... we will look at the womans brain wave to see which women she finds attractive.

while the woman study is reinforcing the conditioning that older male is what the young gal wants, ignoring all the conditioning of female going for older man, for various legitimate reasoning and saying evolutionary, with guess. put a naked 20 yr old and naked 50 yr old and see which the young gal finds more attractive, then get back to me. look at the conditioning of female from birth on and then talk to me about why young gals go for older men.

it isnt the girl finds the old man more attractive, but more useful

again, ignoring all of todays and yesterdays conditioning.

but what really calls the conditioning out, that we ignore once again and say, see see caveman, hee haw. today men/boys are conditioned with skinny, straight, hard (in shape), big boob (fake), female bodies. listen to what the men say

conditioning.

yet when looking at which does it more for them visually, without there control.... it is the hourglass, more normal woman

the reality of it all

i have yet to see any one body type being ignored by either gender. and i dont think woman with any body type should put a lot of stock into it

what it is used for is once again CONDITIONING women, a never ending process since the time we are born, to look at her value in looks, and if she measures up in body style, and feel competitive with fellow female, having a winner and loser.

and there are other aspects of this study i have issue with i have not even gone into

on edit to ad: none of it would be a big deal if taken for the lite nonsensical study that it is along the lines of horoscope knowing our future adn who we are. unfortunately, often on du i come in contact with guys that live this new cult like religion of evolutionary behavior indicative of all they are and use these studies to prove we are no more than this

[cliffordu]

95. What about Pheremones?

My attractions are all over the map......

But I always have been a glutton.

[FedUpWithIt All]

101. When they are shown sexual images. That is a different thing than a study of initial attraction.

I understand what your complaint is. And i suspect we are getting caught on a chicken/egg issue here. I think the research has been narrowed down to it's current parameters because it IS what human nature has long dictating as a framework even within varied social, religious, economic and cultural backgrounds. You seem to think human behavior is conforming to the standards set by the predetermined research parameters and/or social pressures.

Biology...conditioning.

There is a certain bit of irony in your suggestion that men and women are only responsive in the way that the study records because they are conditioned to be. You basically feel that men and women should respond to other stimuli and in a different manner than they currently do. Can't you see that this is in itself a call for conditioning. You are trying to dictate what should be acceptable. Do you have evidence (other than your desire for it to be so) that biological human sexual response, as we currently understand it, is conditioning over nature? There is plenty of evidence to suggest it that it is certainly nature.

There is no accounting for men who use biological research to act like assholes. Trust me, that type does not give the slightest f**k if science backs their behavior, nor would they change if it did not. They are not the majority. There are a great many men who balance their natural urges with their common sense and sensitivity. Just as there are a great many women who do not need to throw the biological baby out with the bathwater so they can find some level of personal power. The two can exist together.

On a personal level, I will take natural biological response tempered with a thoughtful nature over any sort of social conditioning backed by an agenda, any day. And it matters little to me who's agenda it is.

Edited to add a response to this part of your post...

but what really calls the conditioning out, that we ignore once again and say, see see caveman, hee haw. today men/boys are conditioned with skinny, straight, hard (in shape), big boob (fake), female bodies. listen to what the men say

conditioning.

yet when looking at which does it more for them visually, without there control.... it is the hourglass, more normal woman

THIS is precisely why these studies are helpful. By looking at natural response we can begin to do away with social pressure to conform.

It is WOMEN, not men, who are largely dictating what is the social ideal. Women tend to the the roughest on other women they believe are outside the ideal. It is then a short leap to assume, mistakingly as the studies would have it, that men share the same ideal.

The truth is that men tend to have a MUCH broader framework. By understanding this as a natural trait in male sexual response some of the pressure is lifted from BOTH genders. Without an understanding of the biology we are doomed to artificially narrow the criteria based on social rather than natural "norms".

[seabeyond]

115. MAYBE these young guys prefer older women that have had children

that figure would be more in line with that woman

i have to wonder that you take this as a valid study with so little information. we have no evidence how it was conducted opening it up to flaws. we are told majority without know how large the morjority is. 14 guys. 14. 8 like the wider hip, 6 like the slimmer? does that make it even relevent? yet her you are so sure it has to do with the beginning of time.

that is what i am having issue with this new love affair with evolutionary biology. and from the same group of people, with the same agenda, with the same lack of info.

there was recently a study. men looking at breast become dummies.

they took big breasted women, tits falling out of shirt, approaching man and asking what their name was. took so many secs for guy to recall what his name was. conclusion: evolution.... men just gotta, men cant control....

did anyone actually think thru real scientific study on male brain? all these smart people didnt even think to put forth the possibility that male tend to think with left side of brain, women connectors both sides. that men, focused on anything would take seconds to pull out of that focus to be able to answer a question. even their name. isnt that even a little bet more reasonable and logical and intellectual, off of actual scientific data, instead of guess to always present a certain perspective that is advantageous to males?

[seabeyond]

119. MAYBE it is a whole mother/son thing going on. a little boy rmember moms figure when he was in love

with her and bonded and dependent at three, four, five, six figuring out his own sexuality.

maybe it was only the previous 20 yrs ago that effects his behavior today as opposed to tens of thousands of years ago

[Kalyke]

75. My husband hates hippy women.

I have small hips... and he noticed it right away.

The start of the hourglass is fine with him, as long as it drops to more cylindrical toward the hips. He likes the more "athletic" look in the hip area.

[FedUpWithIt All]

111. There is certainly a wealth of individual preference.

I myself am in a relationship with a much younger man which is certainly not the "norm" for either gender. But there are all types and all types of preferences. The study is just pointing out, as many have before it, that there are sometimes more "common" preferences based in old, and typically outdated, reproductive cues.

[anonymous171]

33. They did do one comparing women's perceptions of men's clothing and social status

[seabeyond]

36. rollin eyes. ya.... that, lol. nothing like all us playing roles we are conditioned to. nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

72. You Asked

//linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283802003962

Abstract

Patients and Methods: To address these questions, 375 sexually active women who had recently given birth at the University Hospital Groningen were asked a number of questions about sexual functioning and the importance they attach to the size of their partner’s penis.

Conclusion: Although clearly in the minority, a nevertheless considerable percentage of the women respondents attached substantial importance to the size of the male sexual organ.

[dustbunnie]

80. I question the minority and the back stories of the sampling women they used.

They asked women who had just given birth. If ever there is a time when your entire life is focussed on love and partnership it's right after you've given birth. Most women who've just had a baby are lost in a love haze and the idea of making home with their sig other. Of course they're going to poopoo the importance of penis size. :eyes:

Ask single women between the ages of 20-30 what they think. Then go ask the ladies who are in their prime and looking at younger men for some fun. Where do you suppose their interests lie?

[asdjrocky]

126. Just want to go on record,

I'm willing to volunteer in any way I can to help this study. :eyes:

[seabeyond]

134. that is just so funny....

cute

[liberalmuse]

8. So we women...

should strive to look like the lady on the right, rather than the lady on the left, as we've been told since birth? I'm okay with that.

[aquart]

11. Nah. Doesn't matter what they want.

Has absolutely nothing to do with what they get. MALES DON'T CHOOSE. FEMALES CHOOSE.

They can pant in front of any hourglass they want. But all they get is what we decide to give.

[Betsy Ross]

14. Tee Hee. n/t

[Beacool]

21. Well, as someone whose measurements are closer to those of the lady on the right.

I can attest that I have never heard a guy say that he wished I had a smaller chest or derriere. Since when do most men prefer flat chested women with no butts?

They really needed a study to come to this conclusion?

:eyes:



:7

[Gemini Cat]

56. Most men?

Are you kidding? Not only is that insulting to men, but you're also selling women out who don't have large breasts and butts.
Both of the women are fine.

[dustbunnie]

69. Sad ain't it? Women are always the first to throw each other under the bus.

Plenty, plenty, plenty of men prefer women who are not so big, just as women have individual preferences for burly, boyish, muscular, ripped or obese men. "Hourglass" is an attractive ideal, but it doesn't necessarily mean abundance of flesh. To make a blanket statement about all the men and women populating the planet based on the tastes of men who come on to you personally, isn't exactly scientific.

[Beacool]

188. That was not my intention.

I'm a feminist and I have stood up for women since a very young age. I will even defend women like Palin when they are attacked in a purely sexist manner.

My point was that men are generally attracted to curves. So why does the entertainment and fashion industry view underweight models and actresses as the ideal that every woman should strive to achieve? It's neither healthy nor realistic.

;(

[Deep13]

82. They're both very nice...

...and I'm not going to judge a person based on her shape. Nevertheless, I find more drawn to the one on the right.

[qazplm]

195. judging?

It's not judging to express a preference.

Both women are beautiful, sure. Heck, someone is beautiful to someone else.

We aren't judging their overall value as a human being, but one simple metric.

[redqueen]

139. It's the ubiquitous buying-in to the Male Gaze crap.

It's so very, very, very important, you know... what women look like. So very, very, very important indeed.

[Beacool]

187. You don't think that most men like to check out women's boobs and butt?

I wasn't trying to insult less well endowed women. I meant it as a criticism of the fashion and entertainment business who think that women should look like lollipops. We come in all sizes and I resent this push to make us all conform to some unrealistic standard that only about 1% of all women worldwide can fulfill. Very few women can be a size 0. I apologize if it was taken as a put down of other women, that was not my intention.

:(

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Lady on the right is way hotter.

Way hotter.

[Beacool]

27. It bears repeating...........

:eyes:



:D

[dustbunnie]

29. I'd bet the one on the right is wearing some serious steel-ribbed hardware under that dress. n/t

[Lorien]

99. Nah, she just has big hips

my hips have been that large and I never would have worn a dress that showed them off that way, because, as was already stated, the pressure is to look like the lady on the left.

[dustbunnie]

104. Well, not anymore! :-)

All kinds of body shapes are in vogue now, so people can be themselves and not worry about it. What's referred to as "thick" is a good thing.

Ms Red is Christina Hendricks, and I'm positive she's wearing a body shaper in that pic.

[Lorien]

196. Hmmm...I have a great clingy red dress in my closet that I've never worn

maybe with a body shaper...I don't know. I guess that I'll always be a product of my generation that is so intolerant of anything larger than a size 6 and will be self conscious about not being as straight and narrow as I was expected to be (though I personally think that almost everyone else has something attractive about them).

[Codeine]

31. Yes. Yes you should.

:evilgrin:

[HughBeaumont]

35. OMFG, the woman on the right provokes a waterfall of drool . . .

. . . and people wonder why I'm involved with roller derby.

[scheming daemons]

52. As a 43-yr-old man, I must say the lady on the right is MUCH more appealing...

It's not even close.

[Deep13]

81. I won't presume to tell you what to strive for...

...but yeah Ms. Red looks a lot better to me than Ms. Teal. I prefer women who are shaped like women.

[Lorien]

100. But you won't see women shaped like Ms. Red in any women's fashion magazines

women only see them as the "before" pics on liposuction ads. :-(

[FedUpWithIt All]

107. But you will see plenty of them in mags like Maxim. Also exactly who are fashion mags are geared to?

***Women*** need to change the mainstream perceptions of ideal beauty.

There is such a disconnect between what men find attractive and what we THINK they find attractive.

[dustbunnie]

112. Fashion mags are geared to women who are interested in the clothes, not the bodies.

The average woman doesn't photograph as well wearing the clothes as do the long, lanky coat hanger facsimiles. The tall, thin model allows every woman to imagine the clothing on herself. As soon as the model looks too every day, she niches the clothing to her own body type. On the other hand, when you see a person wearing clothes, it's the average person who shines in them and gives them personality, not necessarily the tall, lanky, very thin person.

Someone here said it very well. Traditionally thin women have been used to sell clothes because that body type is best suited for it. That body type is as normal as an average or overweight one. It was just that during the 60s and 70s, when the super model was born, that people suddenly decided to elevate that body type to iconic, worship-worthy status.

Women's fashion mags will never embrace the shorter, average woman as a spokes model. Men's fashion mags also feature impossibly well-built, square-jawed, muscular dolls. Why does it not bother men, and yet women obsess over it?

[FedUpWithIt All]

114. It doesn't bother men because they themselves have a very broad criteria.

Men largely feel the need to prove themselves in other ways.

In the distant past a woman, who was burdened down with childbearing, needed to be able to DEPEND on her mate to provide for her and their offspring. The man who was best able to provide for the woman was not necessarily the same man that offered the best genetic package. The man with the better genetic package was more in demand and less likely to commit to settling down to a role of provider. Women who had a body shape that was more geared to easy procreation became the sought ideal to the average male mind.

I don't have facts to back this but perhaps women stress body type pressures more than men because we once had a *single* main purpose which was directly tied to physicality. Men had different purposes and not all of them depended on physicality.

Of course we no longer need to live these "rules". Yet we, women as well as men, still very much do.

[seabeyond]

116. or maybe since the beginning of a girls time, she is told her worth is in her looks from every facet

of her world and there is ONLY one body that is acceptable. the little black girl that prefers the white baby doll because evolution tells her she is suppose to or cause culture deems the white girl more attractive?

wtf

i guess it must be the competition for male attention and all about the pathetic female.

[FedUpWithIt All]

121. Ok. Clearly this subject crosses over into something *personal* for you.

Not much more i can discuss with you regarding this issue. It is obvious we are approaching the subject from completely different points of view.

[seabeyond]

136. clearly? really? no. it doesnt

maybe it has to do with all kinds of guesses as facts and the mere dishonesty of such assumptions calls me out. and it has nothing to do with "personal". lol. but glad it is "clear" for you

i mean, doenst it say something to you, that you bring it to evolution, when it could be any number of things?

[dustbunnie]

128. Yes, I think what you say is largely true.

I'll add to that in saying that the expectations have changed somewhat for men, in that there is much more onus on them to be specimens of beauty today as well. What seems to be different about men is that they appear to internalize their anxieties and vulnerabilities concerning their looks/game much more than women do.

And what I've always found fascinating about women is that although we complain and decry the fashion industry for promoting negative body image, there is no evidence that it has really ever had any effect on human relationships vis a vis visceral attraction. In addition to the lanky, tall ideal, there has always been this other even more revered "look" as personified in the likes of Playboy or Penthouse. And dozens of studies just like the OP which indicate we're still affected by our long distant behavioral past. The Christina Hendricks of the world have never had trouble finding mates either for the long or short term. And yet, you would think the fashion industry has completely killed anyone's chances of getting a date if they weigh over 95 pounds. We're screwed up. :)

[FedUpWithIt All]

151. "We're screwed up."

:) I have to agree.

[Jennicut]

117. I am way more closer to Christina Hendricks.

I wish I was smaller then a size 10, but my body shape is just inherited, big butt and big chest. Oh well.

[Romulox]

157. This the same woman? Mon dieu!

Please don't change a thing! :wow:

[qazplm]

194. female on the right

is pretty clearly hotter in my book, not even close. And yes it is primarily because of the curves, although the face is prettier too (then again that also could be a slightly fuller face than the thinner woman on the right).

Then again, I've always liked a little size to my ladies. Thin just doesn't seem attractive to me.

[BlooInBloo]

199. I certainly have never known where girls get the desire to have the body of a 6 year old boy from...

It certainly wasn't from any boy I have ever known, heard, or spoken to.

(shrug)

[leftstreet]

13. What about gay men?

:popcorn:

[donheld]

17. Figure on a woman does nothing for me. Hour glass or not

[Beacool]

22. I don't know, but my gay friends can spot a cute guy faster than a laser beam moves through space.

:evilgrin:

[SmileyRose]

59. LOL

[Occulus]

131. One keeps posting his picture here as part of his sig line in his posts.

I don't even need to see the rest of his body. The guy's real good-looking.... and I'm certain he knows it :D

But that only asks the question again, doesn't it? How does this apply to gay men?

I can appreciate the fact that a woman is beautiful, but that doesn't do anything for me in "that way". Men, on the other hand... but then again, every other gay man I know is turned on by vastly different types of guys. There really doesn't seem to be a pattern. Some like chunky guys, some like hairy guys, some like hairless muscled types, some like thin "twink" types, some appreciate older men. There doesn't seem to be any sort of common denominator.

Now that would be an interesting study. What makes gay men "tick"?

[redqueen]

138. "every other gay man I know is turned on by vastly different types of guys"

I think this is true of hetero men, too. Some guys like very thin petite women, some like tall thin women, some men like short & full-figured women, some like larger women... but for some reason there is this constant attempt to justify the claim that hetero guys all like the cookie-cutter barbie doll image. It makes no sense.

[Nihil]

197. I was about to agree with you then I re-read your post ...

> "every other gay man I know is turned on by vastly different types of guys"
> I think this is true of hetero men, too.

Ummm ... maybe not ... :P

More seriously,
> Some guys like very thin petite women, some like tall thin women,
> some men like short & full-figured women, some like larger women...
> but for some reason there is this constant attempt to justify the
> claim that hetero guys all like the cookie-cutter barbie doll image.
> It makes no sense.

This bit I agree with but with the addition that many guys like more than
one category - i.e., some will like thin petite (short or tall) *and*
more-rounded (depending). Similarly, they will dislike individuals within
any particular arbitrary category because, after that first glance, they
move on to more interesting aspects of the other person.

FWIW, I fall into the above category: I like looking at petite women whilst
remaining very happily married to someone who hasn't been described as that
since she was about 16 ... (and yes, I still like looking at her too!).

There's far more to attraction than a silhouette and it is sadly shallow
that so much focus is put on such trivial aspects ...

:shrug:

[Beacool]

186. I'm not a man, let alone a gay man, so I wouldn't know.

But, the one thing that I know is that my gay friends can spot a hunky guy much faster than my female friends. LOL!!!

Maybe The Advocate or another such publication should do a study on the subject.

:D

[Mari333]

110. ya and what about old grandmas?

:popcorn:

I guess we arent included either in this silly study.

[FrenchieCat]

18. So that's why I was getting those reactions from men for so long!

Well, Good to know! :rofl:

[Myrina]

32. ... and yet the fashion industry 'stars' are built like 8 year old boys ...

.... and that's what teenage girls are made to aspire to because everyone knows by middle school that only the 'skinny girls' get the guys ....


WTF is wrong with society? /rhetorical question

[JI7]

42. one can be thin but still curvy

[Maru Kitteh]

65. With implants.

[EFerrari]

49. There are two models of beauty in our culture afaik.

One belongs to the media driven fashion industry and one is the one most people respond too.

[GoCubsGo]

66. Yep. Apparently, it's not men designing clothing...

At least not the men in this study. I have an hourglass figure, not that anyone can tell most of the time. I can hardly find anything that fits me well. So, I usually have the choice between "baggy" and "ill-fitting." I tend to go with "baggy" out of comfort. So much for having one of those allegedly "lust-worthy" bodies...

[carlyhippy]

67. When I was in middle school in the late 70's, the skinny girls never got the guys

I should know, I was one of those poor girls, cute face, farrah hair but no figure. How society has changed. Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, all the beautiful women of that era, these were not thin women at all, Marilyn Monroe was like a size 16 at the height of her popularity.

[dustbunnie]

92. That Marilyn myth is hilarious. At 5'5" tall, she would've been very big at a size 16.

She was a size eight, and at her biggest, weighed 140. At the height of her popularity she was between a 6 and an 8 and weighed 114. Things have changed but not that much.

If you want to see a size 16, look at post 90. That was not how Marilyn looked.

[seabeyond]

93. 5'5", 140, isnt an 8. nt

[Jennicut]

97. It is closer to a size 10.

I am 5'5 and wear a size 10 to 12. My 12s are getting big lately so I guess I should be happy.

[formercia]

98. I went to College with one of her ex room mates.

This was from when she wasn't yet famous and had just begun in the film industry. She told me that Mariyln was a sweet kid. She had just bought her first car and spent hours keeping it shined. Fame ruined her.

[dustbunnie]

102. It killed her, finally.

Some photos recently surfaced... I think after the photog who owned them passed away. They were taken at a gathering just a week or two before she died... and all those who were there said she was in great spirits and was anxious to make a new start. She looked so beautiful in the pics.

[Stevenmarc]

74. Well it takes more time to put in a dart

[seabeyond]

76. isnt that the truth. to fit upper body

i have to get a larger size, then i am slim all the way down. i am in a tent. a simple dart. that is all i am looking for....

dresses and a lot of tops just wont work.

and i dont want every friggin top to be a skin tight, to show i am not tent size, lol.

wow you

i didnt know that was my issue all this time

[Lorien]

103. I spent most of my teens as an anorexic/ bulimic

BECAUSE of my hourglass figure. The girls in school teased me relentlessly about my hips (which were proportionate to my chest). I had a flat stomach, but even at 5' 7" and 97 pounds I couldn't look as straight and narrow as the fashion models. Some of us just have a broader pelvis so all the starvation in the world won't help. I CONSTANTLY felt deeply ashamed of my figure. Naturally I'm much more comfortable in my skin now, but I feel badly for teenage girls now who are expected to attain even SMALLER frames. The current ideal is downright dangerous for all but the naturally slender and small boned.

[Odin2005]

50. They needed a study for THIS!?!

:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

53. Yeah. I believe this falls under "No Shit Sherlock".

:rofl:

[upi402]

55. Filing for research grant tomorrow

unfrigginbuhlievabull

[blueworld]

146. Well, this says it's their "brains" that are affected. That's news to me.

:rofl:

[struggle4progress]

54. Now look what you wimmin has did to me: I have the munchies!

[aikoaiko]

57. I just watched Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and I feel a bit woozy.

[flying rabbit]

58. Roger Ebert wrote it

the pev!:D

[carlyhippy]

63. The original Valley of the Dolls was awesome, the 2nd movie was nothing more than soft porn

I was disappointed with the 2nd one

[aikoaiko]

87. "[Beyond the Valley of the Dolls] is not a sequel - there has never been anything like it"

That was their tag line. I've been reading online about Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and apparently the idea started off as a serious sequel, but when the idea was rejected they turned to Russ Meyers to turn it into a soft-core spoof.

Also, I had assumed the dolls were the good looking women, but the dolls are actually the barbiturates. It makes more sense that way.

[MyNameGoesHere]

60. Oh fuck you did it now

How dare men lust after a woman's body. Fucking evil men. Dirty filthy man pigs. EVIL EVIL!!

Ehh who am I kidding? Latina butts drive me nuts. Yeah so I am a evil filthy pig man. I will go to hell after i get my fill of watching beautiful round butts.

[Silent3]

68. Sales of hourglasses dropped dramatically after the invention of mechanical...

...time keeping devices, by over 92%.

The average hourglass contains 0.76 lbs of sand or glass beads.

Hmmm. Doesn't do a thing for me.

[Captain Hilts]

70. Only 15% of women have this shape. nt

[LanternWaste]

73. Always seems to be one study or another out there...

Always seems to be one study or another out there telling me what I'm supposed to like or what my preoccupations are supposed to be.

I'll allow them all the merit they warrant, and I'll allow my own preferences all the merit it warrants... but from where I sit, one warrants just a wee bit more than the other.

[seabeyond]

77. telling me what I'm supposed to like or what my preoccupations are supposed to be.

exactly. it has certainly gotten old. and the conditioning obvious. and tired.

both genders

[Silent3]

83. Descriptive vs. proscriptive

Isn't it your own decision to take a descriptive study of how things are (according to a given study or investigation, which may or may not stand the test of further scrutiny) and interpret that statement of how things are as being proscriptive of how things should be?

Should people never describe things as they are out of fear of offending people who will themselves decide to interpret description as proscription?

Just because a majority of people respond a certain way to a certain thing doesn't mean everyone should respond that way. Just because someone delivers the news about the majority responding in a certain way doesn't mean the person delivering that news is telling you how you personally should respond.

[seabeyond]

86. "majority of people respond a certain way to a certain thing"... 14 guys in this study

14

what was the majority, 52%? 95%? 8 guys prefer the implant and 6 guys preferred females without implants?

just how much stock are you willing to put in this little gem of lack of info to validate the data?

[Silent3]

89. That's not the point

If you want to debate the statistical validity of small samples, that's a whole separate issue. Done properly, small samples can be good representatives of large populations however. Was the study done properly? Who knows?

The emotional response of "being tired of being told what to like or not like" has nothing to do, however, with the statistical validity of the study, nor does the size of the majority. If the study were about the ratios of enzymes produced while metabolizing this or that protein, I doubt many people would have an emotional reaction about being told the majority of people studied produced one particular enzyme at a higher rate.

If the study polled 100% of adult human males, would the "being tired of being told what to like or not like" go away? If the methodology represented the pinnacle of investigative excellence, would the "being tired of being told what to like or not like" go away?

[seabeyond]

94. i think that is exactly the point of continuous studies without info to be able to validate data

telling us what we want, who we are, ect. and people holding them up as scientific fact with no bearing to reality that validates destructive behavior.

so i guess you and i disagree

[Silent3]

106. How would any such study "validate destructive behavior"?

Unless you presuppose that everyone must be driven by the need to align themselves with the majority?

Maybe some people are driven like that, but that's their problem, not some study's problem. Making such studies more accurate and reliable does not and would not change the necessary distinction between the message "this is how things are" and "this is how things should be".

Do you contend that once an accurate picture of majority behavior is in place, that such a picture is or should be taken as proscriptive? I would hope not.

By "destructive behavior" in reference to "hour glass figures", I can only imagine you mean things like bulimia, anorexia, excesses of cosmetic surgery, etc. But those things would be bad whether or not a study is accurate or not about what what the majority thinks is an attractive body type.

Suppose the actual truth is a difficult-to-achieve ideal. Is the right thing to educate people to be more comfortable with not fitting that ideal, to deny the actual truth out of fear of the negative effects of the truth, or to insist that such truths face such high burdens of proof that the burden can never be reached, which is simply an indirect form of denial hiding behind a mask of high standards?

Whatever the exact percentage of people with a homosexual orientation is (maybe around 10% from what I've heard), I think it's unlikely we'll ever discover some consistently repeated methodological error has hidden the fact that, say, 75% of people are actually gay. Homosexuals are a minority, plain and simple.

So what? Is saying that tantamount to saying that you shouldn't be gay? Of course not! Exactly the same way, whether it's an accurate study or not, saying "the majority of men like hourglass figures" in no way says, "If you're a man, you'd better prefer hourglass figures!" or "If you're a woman, you'd better have an hourglass figure!"

[seabeyond]

109. boy you ask me a question, thumbs up and then proceed with a lecture/answer without me.

we have yet to define what the majority is. we yet know the validity of the study.... we have no factual information this study means shit.... so no, to all you say on what you precieve i see as destructive.

IF you read the article, further down it uses this info to validate (understand) porn addiction and fucking around on your mate. it "guesses" it is about evolution and since that is who we are, well hell.... there you go. and that it effects them like a drug, yet reading it sets of reactors in parts of brain, so not a real clear descriptive nor not worth much but to grab hold of .... what an excuse.... i am drugged.

[redqueen]

135. LOL... such dumbass crap...

what kind of idiot comes up with "studies" like this? :rofl:

[LanternWaste]

91. I think I covered all of that with...

I think I covered all of that with, "I'll allow them all the merit they warrant, and I'll allow my own preference all the merit it warrants... "

[Silent3]

108. You allowed for your own way out of caring about...

...the results of such studies, but you still characterized such studies themselves as being the source of a proscriptive message. You're successfully avoiding a proscriptive reaction, but only after first imagining proscriptive intent that likely wasn't there in the first place. It's a rebellion against a creation of your own mind.

[LanternWaste]

113. I'm allowing one due merit, and I'm allowing the other due merit.

I'm allowing one its due merit, and I'm allowing the other its due merit.

I imagine there's a vast difference between an obviously tongue-in-cheek statement and a rebellion. I didn't really mean to step on anyone's sacred cows... :shrug:

[Silent3]

130. Maybe you didn't mean it the way I took it...

...but the tone of many people's posts suggests a real, visceral reaction that when a study says the majority is such and such, that the majority likes/prefers/normally does such and such, that someone is trying to tell them how the world is supposed to be, and how they are supposed to be.

It might sometimes be that some news reports of scientific studies add a proscriptive tone to the raw data, but even that doesn't seem to happen very often, not in proportion to the as if they did reactions to such reports.

[LanternWaste]

133. Maybe? Maybe? lol

When not in an academic or business setting, I usually enjoy a good old fashioned visceral reaction-- whether in others or in myself.

I had a pre-med roommate many years ago argue against the survivability of the "violence" illustrated by The Three Stooges. He was most certainly correct, but I soon stopped watching it with him and would wait until he left to enjoy my visceral belly-laughs.

[Silent3]

140. There aren't too many people who think the Three Stooges are real...

...or that any of the stuff happening in a Three Stooges movie is really happening, or worry about the "survivability" of it like your old roommate.

There are a lot of people, however, who don't get beyond their visceral reactions to some things and confuse their own what-should-be figurative language with the truth.

We aren't talking here about laughter and enjoyment based on a loose, for-fun interpretation of events. We're talking about (for some people, even if not yourself) genuine anger over a non-existent slight.

I don't think that when seabeyond responded to your post saying, "telling me what I'm supposed to like or what my preoccupations are supposed to be. / exactly. it has certainly gotten old. and the conditioning obvious. and tired.", she was just having a little laugh being coyly over-dramatic, while inside knowing that the study was just a study and nothing more. That sounds like the reaction of someone genuinely angry about a perceived agenda with an ulterior manipulative motive: "and the conditioning obvious"

It would appear that both myself and seabeyond took you literally. The difference is that seabeyond heartily agrees with a literal interpretation of your words, then takes it further.

[LanternWaste]

149. There aren't too many who give

"There aren't too many people who think the Three Stooges are real..."

There aren't too many who give a damn about the practical impact studies either... . :shrug:

I see quite a few jokes on this thread... isn't it their turn yet to be told that Curly could never survive being slammed over the head with an iron mallet-- 'cause I already know that.

ed: sp

[Silent3]

152. I personally think I have a useful point to make...

...about descriptive vs. proscriptive interpretations. If you don't think it has any value or applicability or importance or is being focused too much on poor little you when other people would be better targets... fine. Why don't you just ignore it then? I'm "annoying" you because you're continuing the conversation by replying to me. Since I'm not annoyed by the conversation, I could keep going forever. :)

[LanternWaste]

158. medicine has little bearing to someone laughing at the Three Stooges.

It has value when applied in the correct context, but medicine has little bearing to someone laughing at the Three Stooges.

In all things, context.




"Why don't you just ignore it then?"
Umm... you keep responding to my posts. :shrug:

[seabeyond]

161. since you seemed to have brought me into the conversation, my point

was in the non scientific manner this supposed science was being taken seriously. as you totally ignore that point to continue with you other argument, that i really dont care at all about. i hardly see you as the person to be interpreting my motives or how you preceive i take things when you do ignore what i am saying and continue on with your own argument without me being a part of it.

[Bunny]

78. Is anybody else squicked out by the idea of 'harvesting' fat from

the waist and implanting it into the buttocks? That just sounds weird. If they took the excess weight from my waist and put it on my ass, I'd be a goddess. Hell, I'd rule the world.

Anyway, men prefer curvy figures? Well, stop the presses. :eyes:

[Silent3]

84. I prefer the idea of harvesting fat from my waist...

...and implanting it in a landfill. :)

[HughMoran]

79. As I get older, I've been wondering why this still happens

When I take my teenage girls someplace, I feel like I need to wear horse blinders - arrgh!

[guitar man]

85. Voluptuous, Buxom

Meat on the bones and all...I likes me some shapely women :evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

88. We needed a scientific study to figure that out?

:argh:

[edbermac]

90. I knew I should have become a scientist.

Could have had a Master's degree by now, but the tuition at the Massachusetts Institute of Babeology was just too much.

[NM_hemilover]

123. No shit. I want to be a part of the next

"scientific" trial that explores what level of coherence is lost in men while watching women's nude yoga.

[Kyril Enko]

96. Then why do tiny stomachs attract us? That IS the area where the baby will gestate!

This is nothing more than programming!

[FedUpWithIt All]

105. The size of an abdomen has nothing to do with actual reproductive health.

It does have a lot to say about general overall health which can affect the ability of a woman to carry a healthy fetus to term.

It is well documented that pear shape (carries more weight on hips) has less cardio problems than the apple shape (carries weight on the abdomen).

[hayu_lol]

118. The hourglass figure was great...

(sometimes even huge)back in the 1890s. LOL.

Dunno, have thought about all this since I achieved old age and have come to the conclusion that what turned me on(in dating days)was the girl's eyes. Eyes seemed to indicate whether a mind lurked inside that was capable of interesting conversation.

Once that was established, the package didn't really matter.

My opinion, for better or worse, is that butts, bellys, and boobs really didn't matter. Minds did.

[Mari333]

120. thank you for being wise.

it a rare thing to encounter these days. :)

[FedUpWithIt All]

125. That is wonderful.

I hope the criteria has served you well. :) :hi:

[redqueen]

132. Ah come on now... why spoil the fun of thinking/acting like monkeys?

Wish there were more guys like you. :yourock:

[FedUpWithIt All]

141. Being attracted to a physical attribute reduces one to the level of primate?

Interesting.

[Scout]

143. we ARE primates ... but we are supposed to behave better. n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

148. And feeling attraction to a physical attribute is somehow less than?

:shrug:

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong or less evolved about feeling physical attraction to a physical quality of another human being. And anyone here who claims they have no preferences at all is...well...difficult to believe.

I also applauded the author of the "brains are attractive" post. It is a good quality to try and look beyond programing. I suspect if you asked the men in the OP's study, most of them would have said they find a woman's eyes or smile or humor attractive. And they most likely mean it. Their brains still will light up at a specific WHR.

I was offended by the post i responded to because it is simple bashing. People are not "monkeys" because they physically react to stimuli and to suggest that they are is injurious.

[redqueen]

150. I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to believe.

The pull of the primitive is pretty strong.

As for there being anything wrong with it... of course not... it's natural.

However it has become an obsession, and it is not healthy. Encouraging it and minimizing the effects of this behavior is IMO fucking stupid.

[FedUpWithIt All]

153. Really, redqueen. Not at all swayed by the physical eh?

Even the post you responded to pointed out a physical trait.

But i guess you would involve yourself with a man sight unseen, right? You are surely in a very small minority indeed. How lucky that you have found your way out of the trees.

:eyes:

[redqueen]

154. You only deal in absolutes, is that it?

Try reading that last post again. Like I said, it's natural to notice.

That so many can conflate simple noticing with what is actually going on in society (read about the Male Gaze), I don't know what it says... but it's sad.

And yes, I have "involved myself" (*roffle*) with a man sight unseen. (My definition of your hilarious term = become sexually attracted to.)

And no, it's nothing to do with luck. It's more to do with thinking.

[FedUpWithIt All]

160. You added to it after i responded. Originally it said simply "the primitive is strong"

As for there being anything wrong with it... of course not... it's natural.

However it has become an obsession, and it is not healthy. Encouraging it and minimizing the effects of this behavior is IMO fucking stupid.

You claimed that people who experience it are "monkeys". That seemed rather absolute to me. Not to mention hurtful and unfair. And hurtful and unfair prejudicial statements are in my own humble opinion "fucking stupid".

What behaviors affects were being encouraged exactly? Being physically attracted to the physical characteristics of another? Or was their some other behavior mentioned in the OP that you are referring to? I must have missed it. Or perhaps you just threw out one of those charming man bashing comments for free.

How did that sight unseen work out for you? Kinda hard to fuck with a bag over ones head no?

[redqueen]

164. No, I didn't claim that... that was your interpretation.

Why are you being so defensive and nasty?

When I refer to monkey behavior, I'm referring to those who use superficial crap as a high priority when making choices. That goes for more than just looks, btw, but looks are of course the subject of this thread.

What's being encouraged? Well in this thread, the idea that women should strive to look a certain way, the idea that hetero men aren't socialized to think that women's looks are unbelievably important, the idea that putting a premium on superficial bullshit is just fine and dandy, etc.

Your comment about fucking with a bag over one's head... yeah... that's... special.

For your information, people can be sexually attracted to all kinds of people. Just because YOU find people's looks of such importance that you can't be sexually turned on by them if they don't fit your little standard... that doesn't mean that everyone else is the same way.

I'm honestly amazed by the... I can't even find a word for it. Do you think old people have to put bags over each others' heads? How about burn victims? Fat people? Who, in your expert opinion, is too ugly to be "fucked" (nice word, btw... speaks volumes really) without a bag over their head?

[FedUpWithIt All]

177. Fun times...

Where to begin....

When I refer to monkey behavior, I'm referring to those who use superficial crap as a high priority when making choices. That goes for more than just looks, btw, but looks are of course the subject of this thread.

Really? Was that what was occurring in the OP? I thought it was a simple little study to see what happens to a man's brain when exposed to certain sexual stimuli. It is this male physical response to that sexual stimuli in the OP that you referred to as "monkey" behavior. It is there for anyone to see so it really is a waste of time to keep going over what you "meant".

What's being encouraged? Well in this thread, the idea that women should strive to look a certain way, the idea that hetero men aren't socialized to think that women's looks are unbelievably important, the idea that putting a premium on superficial bullshit is just fine and dandy, etc.

A study documenting the the brain reactions of men to certain sexual stimuli does not mean that women should strive to look a certain way. And your suggestion that it does is...well that could be a whole other thread. Again, the study simply monitored reactions, it did not put "a premium" on anything superficial. Besides, who are you to determine one attractive physical attribute as acceptable (eyes) and another as superficial (WHR)

The OP study confirmed that the ratio is more important than the size of a woman's form which is actually in direct contrast to typically understood social pressures.

For your information, people can be sexually attracted to all kinds of people. Just because YOU find people's looks of such importance that you can't be sexually turned on by them if they don't fit your little standard... that doesn't mean that everyone else is the same way.

Wow. Really, very clever tactic here.

:eyes:

And then there is this...

I'm honestly amazed by the... I can't even find a word for it. Do you think old people have to put bags over each others' heads? How about burn victims? Fat people? Who, in your expert opinion, is too ugly to be "fucked" (nice word, btw... speaks volumes really) without a bag over their head?

I really have NO IDEA what your going on about here. Don't like the word "fucked"? Although that explains a lot, I will point out that less offensive wording was mocked by you as well.

"involved myself" (*roffle*)

Perhaps sex discussions in general are what is at issue here. :shrug:

I was simply wondering how it is that you became *sexually involved (is this gentle enough for you?)* with someone without having seen them. Because when i pointed out to another poster that i would have a hard time believing someone that claims to have no physical preferences at all, you responded with...

I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to believe. The pull of the primitive is pretty strong.

Insinuating that you, yourself, are above all that attraction nonsense. You further implied that you have had been **involved**( ie. fucked) with another that you had never seen. I just wondered how that happens and assumed a bag of some sort would have to be involved.

Now as fun as this all is, it really is not worth the time being invested, because tomorrow there will simply be a new thread for all the ladies to go faux outrage on. G'night.

This has been heavily edited for comprehension but since your not reading it... lol

[redqueen]

179. OK... I'm sifting through this...

"How did that sight unseen work out for you? Kinda hard to fuck with a bag over ones head no? "

There... so that hopefully clears up some of your confusion.


As for your obliviousness to the things being said in this thread, as a response to the OP... I don't know how to react to that. I guess you're not reading the thread at all... and therefore you're all confused and have no idea what I'm referring to. Weird.


As for your insistence that sexual attraction = fucked... "fucked" is not my definition of either 'sexual attraction' or 'involved'... maybe if you'd choose your words more carefully they'd be more easily understood. I'm not going to pursue that line of conversation with you though... cause damn! :rofl:

[redqueen]

166. FYI

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D

[Scout]

156. it's not the FEELING that is the problem, duh, it's how one chooses to act/react to the feeling n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

162. Duh, the study was about **feeling** attraction. As far as i can tell, not a single

inappropriate behavior has been mentioned, either in the OP or in the posts i have seen, that warrants "monkey" comments. But hell, don't let my feminine ass get in the way of all this fun male bashing. After all, bashing is such a charming social behavior.

[Scout]

165. bashing, smashing. do whatever you want with your "feminine ass" n/t

[RedRoses323]

144. Kudos!

B-)

[rug]

122. What's not to like?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

145. ...

:rofl:

[RainDog]

155. those things actually DISPLACE women's organs

victorian aesthetic, so big on a tiny waist, etc. also dealt with huge asses and stomachs because of displaced organs and fat caused by waist cinching.

that, I'm sure, was really fetching.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

159. I think it's sad that she felt the need to do that to her body..

but then again, it's none of my business.

It just can't be healthy (as you pointed out). She obviously likes it though, so good for her.

[RainDog]

167. not only that,

but cinching puts LOTS OF lbs per inch pressure on those females. I can't remember the exact figure anymore, but came across that when I was doing some work on victorian-era material.

our weirdness about our bodies is cultural. doesn't make it any less stronger, but, beyond knowing that men favor women who appear to be capable of fertility - this study doesn't say anything about our culture or anyone else's fetish du jour.

anxiety/fear is a great way to get people to buy things - to "fix" what's wrong with them.

it's also a great way to control others. if they're never good enough, I guess they don't need to vote, etc.

and we have a long, long cultural history that is based upon men's fears of women cuckholding them. anxiety about paternity=chastity belt. and the story of Eve.

when human females ovulate, we no longer walk around with a bright red behind. well, at least most of us -- can't account for Red Queen. :) lol.

but we do still signal thru scent that is simply part of the hormonal process.

while one long-standing joke is the female gold digger, as more women reach levels of money and power equal to a sugar daddy, they, too, are sometimes sugar mommas. that's cultural. that's about access to resources and how to react within a culture to have resources to survive.

and of course, we study these issues of nature/nuture within the boundaries of our specific culture.

/ramble off

[redqueen]

168. Excuse me?

"when human females ovulate, we no longer walk around with a bright red behind. well, at least most of us -- can't account for Red Queen. lol."

Care to explain the joke, please?

[RainDog]

169. smooches! I was going lounge on you in GD

I am a huge fan of Dr. Strange, you know.

[redqueen]

170. Hahah oh...

you had me all WTF?!

Now I'm all :rofl:

:P

[RainDog]

171. I thought you would KNOW I was joking

since you told Dr. Strange that he has no idea just how freaky you are... :)

[redqueen]

176. Heheh

yeah well this is GD... so... I'm never so sure around this place

*shifty eyes*

[Dr. Strange]

190. Alerting.

This subthread is a violation of Forum rules.

[redqueen]

191. YOU'RE a violation of Forum Rules.

*pbththbhthbht*

[Dr. Strange]

193. That does it.

I'm turning this thread around and moving it to the Science Forum!

[seabeyond]

174. men favor women who appear to be capable of fertility .. and who decided on this little gem

nto a reality. not a fact. not something that any man said.... well ya know. all guess. and has become scientific fact

what if it is merely because hips are so much different from being male, that is why it is attractive to them, and speaks of being woman... not about having a baby???

in this "new" science we put all kinds of suppositions and guesses as facts

[RainDog]

175. men respond to ovulating women by the scent

that's one example.

Smells are known to be critical to animal mating habits: Animal studies have shown that male testosterone levels are influenced by odor signals emitted by females, particularly when they are ovulating (that is, when they are the most fertile)

... In two studies, women wore tee shirts for 3 nights during various phases of their menstrual cycles. Male volunteers smelled one of the tee shirts that had been worn by a female participant. In addition, some of the male volunteers smelled control tee shirts that had not been worn by anyone. Saliva samples for testosterone analysis were collected before and after the men smelled the shirts.

Results revealed that men who smelled tee shirts of ovulating women subsequently had higher levels of testosterone than men who smelled tee shirts worn by non-ovulating women or men who smelled the control shirts. In addition, after smelling the shirts, the men rated the odors on pleasantness and rated the shirts worn by ovulating women as the most pleasant smelling.

The authors note that "the present research is the first to provide direct evidence that olfactory cues to female ovulation influence biological responses in men."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100113122514.htm

[seabeyond]

181. that makes sense.

and there are absolute factors to measure. but that has nothing to do with hips meaning reproduction. that is not a scientific fact, but an assumption

i will read more of the other study later. a quick perusal only, on the way out the door. thanks.

[LeftHander]

124. Booty Science progresses....

Don't be jealous of my boogie...

[Mari333]

127. RU PAUL KNOWS THIS ALREADY

[liberalhistorian]

129. LOL, like they really needed

a study to show this! LOL

[blueworld]

147. Keep ur hourglass; I'll wait for Big Ben. LOL. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

172. I 'm confused

The porno barbie doll look, the one seemingly most revered in our country right now, has big plastic tits and slim hips with no meat. And no hair except on the head. What gives? We have women on one diet after another to the point of ill health, and what's this study saying? Give it up ladies, keep the booty? Or only a certain kind of booty? Full and prepubescent at the same time?

A study of 14 twenty somethings is not particularly scientific. What bothers me is the horror movie aspect of showing these men pictures of women before and after surgery. I wouldn't use it to describe the attraction to pornography. (Well maybe *I* would, but it's not exactly a great example to use when trying to find a scientific basis for porn lovers) I also wouldn't call strong personal attraction a 'drug'; It's always been about chemicals running around in the body.



I know Desmond Morris speculated that the human primate developed breasts to resemble the buttocks of primate rear mounting in the transition to face to face, this despite the fact that our close relatives bonobos and Orangutans have also been known to copulate face to face. I like Nancy Angiers theory that we just are kind of circular people; round facial cheeks, rounded muscles like calves or biceps aren't the same in primates. A slimmer waist is a piquant constant to larger hips and thighs and breasts? Well sure. And while hips and breasts are gonna do what they're gonna do, wide shoulders, great pecs, nicly developed arms combined with a slim waist in males probably does the same thing for certain women.

[Iggo]

173. Man! I gotta get me some study money!

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

183. That 'icy sexual repression' crap...

That's the same crap RWers spew about feminists. Nice job!

If you actually care to try to understand the issue... try this for a start: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ismnotwasm]

185. Oh dear

I'm not angry Luv or, --and you'll have to take my word for it, sexually repressed.

I do hold an opposite theory however. The truly sexually repressed are are too frightened to question media driven, for profit, spoon fed ideals of sex, gender and sexuality. So many fundamentalists seem to secretly love porn, those nasty boys. The sex industry thrives on sexual repression, it needs it. Were people to be sexually free, whoops! there goes the profit.

Now I dig erotica, but try and find it anywhere. Try to define it, for that matter. A sad state of affairs.

[redqueen]

192. Oooh interesting insight re: sexual repression. (nt)

[JHB]

182. I dunno....doesn't seem to do a thing for me...

[Blue_Tires]

189. From the files of "SHIT WE ALREADY KNEW"

pics are always welcome, though...

[Orsino]

200. This is why I don't bother taking drugs. n/t