Compare these two posts, one from almost a year ago and one from two months ago:

[Link]

This is a corollary to:
Why are women's magazines filled with pictures of scantily clad women just like men's magazines are filled with pictures of scantily clad women?

Restating the question:
Straight women don't seem to mind looking at other women, but straight men tend to avoid looking at other men. Is this due to some basic difference in sexuality between men and women, or is this a socially conditioned response?

[Link]

Insofar as your magazine example goes you should ask yourself why those photos are there. If women are checking out other women in magazines it's primarily because they've been conditioned to follow 'fashion' and the women are providing examples of what's in.

Men are looking at women because they're men (duh). Men aren't going to look at other men because what's the point? Most of us care damn-all about fashion, and other men aren't sexually attractive, so I maintain there is no point in looking.

[Link]

I find your original question more open-ended and interesting than your "hint", which I find confining. Why ask a broad question to begin with if you're seeking a more limited kind of answer? At any rate, I'm going to respectfully ignore your hint and respond with the following:

As Hardware pointed out, there's a big difference between "avoiding" looking at men and "not focusing" on them. For me, the "not focusing" has precisely to do with the typical nature of my (not conscious in the moment but understood in retrospect) involvement with a porn scene. I generally don't want to see much of the male performer because my fantasy isn't about being him -- it's about my being me in the scene in his place. The more "present" and "distinctive" in the scene the man is, the less completely I can imaginatively "replace" him with myself.

A few male performers (from my perspective, primarily the ones who are also directors) have a very distinctive presence in any scene in which they are involved -- mostly, I think, because they are "talkers" who are proactively orchestrating the sexual action that they are performing in, regardless of whether they are the directors of the videos that they are performing in -- and their strong presence renders them not readily "replaceable". Off the top of my head, Rocco, Nacho, Lex, and Brandon come to mind as male performers who perform predominantly in this mode. My response to this kind of porn is different from my usual response to porn, but still I'm not particularly focused when watching it on the male director/performer per se; I'm focused on how the woman responds to his "directiveness".

I suppose that when I'm watching all-girl videos, I'm in some way fantasizing that I'm one or all of the women in the scenes. (I've always known that I'm a lesbian at heart! )

<typos too sly for spell check!!!>

Edited by - Bob on 6/4/2003 6:19:28 PM

[Link]

And anyways I don't know how the average guy could identify with any of the porn studs, nowadays, with their massive cocks.

[Link]

The scantily clad women in women's magazines send a subtle (or not-so-subtle) message to the reader that she's inadequate. If a woman wants to be more "acceptable" (more like the airbrushed and glamorized images), maybe she'll buy the products.

The scantily clad women in men's magazines tend to make the reader horny. Most men like feeling horny, I think, and will keep buying the magazine to enjoy that experience. (And maybe they'll buy the products, too, in the hopes of attracting scantily clad women into their lives.)

Actually, the vast majority of women's magazines offend me far more than anything I've ever seen in porn. It's relatively easy to find adult movies that celebrate female pleasure and help me feel good about myself. It's nearly impossible to find women's magazines that celebrate female pleasure and help me feel good about myself.

This is a big part of the reason why I watch porn and don't read women's magazines.

I know that doesn't quite answer the question, but I just wanted to clear that up.

[Link]

Putting on my most objective and analytical hat,

I know my 'hint' is a bit of a restriction on the original question. It's more of a subset, being another angle on the same phenomena. I didn't mean for it to restrict or side track the original question, but to compliment it.

So far there are some very good subjective replies. There are two comments from males that the female response is socially conditioned. Assuming for a moment that this is so, what social factors contribute to the difference between men's and women's sexual response to porn?

Let's hear from more women. I know that all blondes are not dumb. Or is that 'not all blondes are dumb?' Hmmm, scratching my head on that syntax connotation issue.

And where are all the low brow intellectualists, anyway?

Edited by - RobHammer on 6/4/2003 8:47:32 PM

[Link]

As for me, I was almost always horny in my teens and twenties (my wife used to call me "tripod", in an affectionate way). In my thirties, before our kids were born, I was horny a good deal of the time, but not as consistently as before. In my mid-forties now, and perpetually exhausted by work and young kids, I'm horny at certain times most every day, but I'm by no means continuously horny; some erotic stimulus -- whether it's a glance at my wife, a cute woman in an elevator, a sexy gal sashaying down the sidewalk, a men's magazine, a video, or a stray fantasy -- is usually a necessary precursor to my horniness these days.

Ahhh, youth! I miss it sometimes. [insert "sigh" emoticon]

[Link]

I don't exactly disagree with you, but MY definition of being horny -- "my conscious awareness and experience of my 'horniness'" -- synchs up with what YogaGrrl wrote:

[Link]

While it may be entirely possible to write a dissertation on this subject I would like to give one suggestion...

*Disclaimer: Social factors are often culturally based and this idea may not be correct in all areas of the globe.*

Anyone with children and most without are aware in some form or fashion of the youthful "Eww.. Girl (or Guy) Cooties" reaction that we often grow up with. The dividing pressure for personal identification of the sexes is pronounced in all forms of our American society. Media is probably the most responsible for this (how many soft plush toys do you see advertised for guys?), but also family dynamics, etc. As children the general male advertising is based on visual aspects (cool looking, flashy, quick cut commercials). The female is offered commercials w/ soft color pallets, catchy music, and toys focus on the tactile (soft brush-able hair).

This translates as we grow up into our personal preferences of what is appealing, and therefore the porn we watch. Men like the beautiful women and are more visually aroused, while women are aroused by the more passionate, emotional, and often more auditory factors (as was/is Yogagrrl). Few of these scenes ever make it into porn and therefore, few women are interested. Now.. are biology/genetics a factor in this as well? Probably. But the final response is a cognitive decision by the viewer.

Using myself as an example, I grew up moving around a lot and hard toys were too difficult to pack. Therefore, I grew up with a soft knock-off of a Cabbage-Patch doll as my only primary toy. Today I prefer the more sensitive "couples" and softcore movies that seem to more often appeal to the female demographic. I don't believe that this is just an accident or coincidence.

[Link]

Little boys and girls start out pretty much the same. Hormones transform our bodies, but it's the cultural influence that shapes our thinking the most.

The masculine and feminine rolls we learn by example. the things that shape our sexual response are harder to pinpoint. Your toy example is an angle I hadn't thought of before, but it sounds perfectly legitimate to me.

Edited by - RobHammer on 6/5/2003 6:09:25 PM

[Link]

However, as an observant person -- and as a father to boys, an uncle to boys and girls, and someone who is deeply involved in pre-school and elementary school education -- I do not believe even for a minute that "[l]ittle boys and girls start out pretty much the same." My own experience tells me that each human being, and boys and girls across the gender divide quite distinctively, have significantly different "wiring" from the start.

Does that mean that I think that our "wiring" predetermines our destinies or predominates over familial influences, socio-cultural influences, or . . . dare I say it, individual choice and free will, our abilities to dream, aspire, and change? Not by a long shot.

In my view, we disserve our understanding of ourselves and others when we ignore any of the facts that present themselves, or fall into any particular reductionist slant in our thinking -- whether that's the reductionism of genetics, of family, of culture, of class-structure, or of any other single factor.

We humans are complex, paradoxical, and unpredictable beings.

<edited for typos>

Edited by - Bob on 6/5/2003 7:48:18 PM

[Link]

My reference to little boys and girls starting out pretty much the same was a simplistic one, meant to show there is little difference between the sexes at the beginning of life. They accept love, affection and cuddling from anyone regardless of gender. They cry when distressed and laugh when amused. They don't care about being clothed or naked and fondle their own genitals without shame. Little boys don't necessarily reach for a shiny toy truck any more than little girls reach for a soft cuddly doll. They get programmed that way.

[Link]

He also wrote:

He also wrote:

[Link]

I'm not going to argue the point, and my vocabulary isn't as big as yours, so forget the whole thing.

Of course there are gender differences in sexual response that are wired into us. Take a look at some primate studies. In one species, orangutan I think, the males are all rapists. In another species, I don't remember which one, the females are calling the shots. The question for humans is, how much of our sexual response is hard wired, and how much is socially programmed? We are not going to be able to answer this on a porn board, because the experts haven't been able to answer this. All we can do is offer up suggestions and observations.

My original question was directed at two specific groups that I found to be statistically significant. The group of straight males that are focused on the female and find that watching another male's pleasure in their porn is undesirable, and the group of straight females that identify with another female in their porn and get satisfaction from watching her pleasure. Again, I don't think we can answer this question on a porn board, only offer up suggestions and observations.

[Link]

That really hurts.

I haven't meant to be argumentative or to use big words to discourage discussion. I've tried to express what I've actually observed in the growing children that I know. You've seen different things, and I don't discount your observations -- I just don't share some of them.

Despite the light touch you've tried to exert in guiding the discussion in this thread, you seem to have a particular normative axe to grind. I'm all for grinding axes. So I'd rather hear you say plainly that you deplore the rigidity of masculine and feminine stereotypes in our society and in our porn (which I also deplore), than see you implying/proposing a reductive theory of behavioral causation that is based on a statistically insignificant sampling of ADTers' views.

Here's one the axes that I grind constantly: I abhor reductionism -- in part, because I think it's misguided . . . but also, and maybe mostly, because it feels dehumanizing to me.

<typos>

Edited by - Bob on 6/6/2003 8:54:33 PM

[Link]

Just this girls P.O.V. ;)

If they ever perfect the android they should surely be used to replace men in porn.

[Link]

Bob, sorry to be so abrupt. I didn't want to get into a volleyball match on that one. Sure, I've got plenty of axes to grind with society. I'm really not trying to be a reductionist. I found the difference between the two male and female groups to be significant, and was genuinely curious as to why. Another manifestation of the issue: there are female masturbation videos that a lot of straight women watch. When was the last time you saw a male masturbation video that wasn't gay porn? Hmmm, that's another head scratcher.

In an effort to further educate myself, I bought a book today titled 'Brain Sex - The real difference between men and women.' A quote from the paperback cover:

"The sexes are different because their brains are different. In 'Brain Sex,' geneticist Anne Moir and journalist David Jessel take you on a journey from the sexual differentiation of the prenatal brain to the gender differences inherent in kindergarten playstyles, classroom abilities and adult attitudes toward love, sex and marriage."

I doubt that they will cover porn viewing preferences. Amazon.com has it here.

[Link]

Please share with us your thoughts on "Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women" once you've finished reading it . . . even if it doesn't cover porn viewing preferences.

amarie,

How about if I just dress up as an android?

P.S. -- Where'd you get that sexy avatar?

[Link]

So I suppose the essence of the question is still nature vs. nurture. In my opinion, both play large roles in the socialization and gender identification process.

[Link]

The avatar is part of an image of Devon and Tabitha Stevens fondling each other in simulated rain. Woo! ;)

[Link]

The REALLY sad thing is that I'm going to die anyway, no matter how or whether I dress up. That fact has been dogging me since I was about 4 (and that was 40 years ago).

Regarding your "avatar", amarie, you show a very sensitive, artistic eye.

That photo was cropped masterfully, and it's a much more powerful and evocative image for me than the original, "complete" photo is -- attractive as Devon and Tabitha are.

When I looked at the original photo, my eyes were drawn to their faces first, to the curve from their shoulders to their knees second, and to the crossed-wrists-and-hands-fondling-breasts part of the composition (the unique, creative, most sensual part) last. You really distilled the vital essence from an image that I (my penis-brain, that is) would otherwise have given only a quick and approving nod and thereafter paid little attention to.

Wow . . . very cool! Thanks!

<typos . . . natch>

Edited by - Bob on 6/10/2003 4:09:47 PM

[Link]

My own take is that genetic scientists have begun to find small differences that may be indicators of sexual orientation. I suspect they will eventually discover there to be several genes involved, thus making the degree of difference variable, based on the number of genes or on which particular genes are present (some may have more influence than others).

I also suspect that nurture plays a very significant role, triggering the expression of or, more especially, the repression of genetic traits related to homosexuality.

There have been a number of studies done to measure response with different types of sexual material for stimuli. Unfortunately, many of the results are suspect for a variety of reasons, including the methods used to measure response being stimuli in and of themselves.

As for me, women don't turn me on - regardless of their beauty or sexuality - neither do effeminate men (nor adolescents). When watching gay porn, sometimes I am just an observer and sometimes I picture myself as being involved in the action - sometimes as one of the characters depicted and sometimes as an additional character added to the on-screen action within my mind. When watching straight porn, I almost invariably block out the woman/women, inserting myself into her/their roles - but as a man - remapping the scene in a male/male venue.

~ GaySatyr

[Link]

Plus it makes that cool looking X thing.

[Link]

I was thinking of you when I wrote this. It's a quote from my unfinished review of Naked Hollywood 15:

"He's a sweaty fuck machine. Switch to doggy. Nina's rippling buttocks get a good pounding from her mechanical stud fucker. He jerks onto her back. He's actually alive and makes noise."

[Link]