What women find sexy

[PennLady]

According to this article, it's not Rep. Weiner's wiener. Nor anyone else's.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

That article is ridiculous. I have a hard time believing this:

“We spent six years of research on why women have sex,” Meston says. They compiled 237 reasons. Duty sex. Revenge sex. Pity sex. Bored sex, engaged in because women simply had nothing better to do. “Of the 237 reasons why women have sex,” Meston says, “not one was looking at a man’s genitals.”

Who the hell were they surveying? Not one person found looking at a naked man arousing?

 

[3113]

Who the hell were they surveying? Not one person found looking at a naked man arousing?

I think they mean that women didn't find looking at male genitalia arousing. Men, presumably, will be aroused by a picture of nice, ample, female breasts or female genitalia, who cares without the woman's face or other body parts. The assertion (as I read this) is that women don't find a penis, all by its lonesome, arousing. They want to see the man around it. His abs, his chest, his shoulders, his nice biceps, his smiling face.

But, heck, let's do our own research:

http://www.aboutcirc.com/davids.gif

http://www.zyzyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/The-Statue-of-David.jpg

Ladies, which arouses you (or arouses you more)?

 

[lovecraft68]

I think they mean that women didn't find looking at male genitalia arousing. Men, presumably, will be aroused by a picture of nice, ample, female breasts or female genitalia, who cares without the woman's face or other body parts. The assertion (as I read this) is that women don't find a penis, all by its lonesome, arousing. They want to see the man around it. His abs, his chest, his shoulders, his nice biceps, his smiling face.

But, heck, let's do our own research:

http://www.aboutcirc.com/davids.gif

http://www.zyzyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/The-Statue-of-David.jpg

Ladies, which arouses you (or arouses you more)?

You hit it on the head. As a guy who has been accused of thinking more like a woman. The difference is the guys classic lines of

"Head is head"

"That is what doggy style is for"

And pretyy much the thought of all they care about is neck down.

Women's main problem with a penis is what it is attached to. A dick attached to a dick does nothing for a woman. Women will also look past pure physical attributes. A guy can be average looks build (cock size) but if he is a decent guy his stock goes up as opposed top the "hung stud" that is a meathead.

Just my take.

 

[punkreader]

The entire statue. Period. Looking at genitalia alone is like staring at a fleshy anatomy textbook: boring, lifeless, and not all that arousing. As I'm currently studying anatomy (on my own, with textbooks), and plan on attending medical school, it goes doubly for me. Gentalia by itself = "remind me why I'm doing this again?" Genitalia with a face and other features (male or female) are infinitely more sexy, at least to this woman.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, I don't know.. It's a very pretty penis. Nice full balls. beautifully crisp hair. I'd like him to spread his legs and give me a view of his perineum...

His head? It's awfully oversized, I don't care for swollen egos.

 

[stephen55]

Oh,
I'd like him to spread his legs and give me a view of his perineum...

I'll get Michelangelo working on that...

 

[PennLady]

That article is ridiculous. I have a hard time believing this:



Who the hell were they surveying? Not one person found looking at a naked man arousing?

Well, we don't know the whole survey or the questions or how they were phrased. I gather what they mean was that the pictures themselves weren't arousing enough to lead to sex. And this is something I've talked about with others -- men seem more turned on by graphic descriptions, visuals, etc. Women not so much.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

I think they mean that women didn't find looking at male genitalia arousing. Men, presumably, will be aroused by a picture of nice, ample, female breasts or female genitalia, who cares without the woman's face or other body parts. The assertion (as I read this) is that women don't find a penis, all by its lonesome, arousing. They want to see the man around it. His abs, his chest, his shoulders, his nice biceps, his smiling face.

But, heck, let's do our own research:

Ladies, which arouses you (or arouses you more)?

Neither picture does anything for me, but maybe I'm weird like that. I will admit to spending a good fifteen minutes in front of him in Florence, though.

Moving on, the beginning of the article PL linked to focuses on pictures, but the part I quoted doesn't. That's the kicker. I think it's true that most women like a little context or mood in their pictures (though a picture of a bed of rose petals over a picture of a naked man? please don't make me laugh). But that researcher is talking about the motivations for sex, not pictures. She says that women are more likely to have sex due to boredom, pity, anger, or duty than a desire to see some cock, up close and personal. I find that absurd.

Furthermore, while I think it's right to focus on mood when we're talking about arousal (I won't comment on men v. women), a picture can convey mood, even if the subject is relatively . . . small (wrong word for men, but you know what I mean).

 

[3113]

Oh, I don't know.. It's a very pretty penis.

Well, Mikey there rumored to have known penises up close and personal. He did do a particularly nice job on the balls. Must have been his dream penis.

 

[PennLady]

Neither picture does anything for me, but maybe I'm weird like that. I will admit to spending a good fifteen minutes in front of him in Florence, though.

David seems too wholesome to be too arousing.

Moving on, the beginning of the article PL linked to focuses on pictures, but the part I quoted doesn't. That's the kicker. I think it's true that most women like a little context or mood in their pictures (though a picture of a bed of rose petals over a picture of a naked man? please don't make me laugh). But that researcher is talking about the motivations for sex, not pictures. She says that women are more likely to have sex due to boredom, pity, anger, or duty than a desire to see some cock, up close and personal. I find that absurd.

But I don't think the issue is a picture of a naked man. What's at issue is whether a picture just of a man's genitalia is arousing, and apparently most women would not agree (and don't forget, survey samples get skewed anyway -- who answers, how old they are, how truthful, etc.). What started this, don't forget, was a picture of an aroused man wearing boxers -- but only the crotch area.

So the article -- which was tongue-in-cheek anyway -- was about whether pictures of a man's cock was sexy or exciting to women. I have to admit that a picture of a man's dick, with no context, is not exciting to me. A picture of a naked man would get a different reaction.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Neither picture does anything for me, but maybe I'm weird like that. I will admit to spending a good fifteen minutes in front of him in Florence, though.

Moving on, the beginning of the article PL linked to focuses on pictures, but the part I quoted doesn't. That's the kicker. I think it's true that most women like a little context or mood in their pictures (though a picture of a bed of rose petals over a picture of a naked man? please don't make me laugh). But that researcher is talking about the motivations for sex, not pictures. She says that women are more likely to have sex due to boredom, pity, anger, or duty than a desire to see some cock, up close and personal. I find that absurd.

I would say that women are more likely than men to have sex for non-sexual reasons-- but that may be more due to social norms than innate preference. After all, women are commonly believed to want to have sex for other reasons, like "laying back and thinking of England" while EVERYONE KNOWS that men are dragged around by their dicks. These surveys never ask the right questions. The question that arises for me, is "why is this so, if it's true?

Furthermore, while I think it's right to focus on mood when we're talking about arousal (I won't comment on men v. women), a picture can convey mood, even if the subject is relatively . . . small (wrong word for men, but you know what I mean).

"focused" might be the word you're looking for

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

I would say that women are more likely than men to have sex for non-sexual reasons-- but that may be more due to social norms than innate preference. After all, women are commonly believed to want to have sex for other reasons, like "laying back and thinking of England" while EVERYONE KNOWS that men are dragged around by their dicks. These surveys never ask the right questions.

I was just doing some googling, and I came across this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/science/31tier.html

Some answers to their original survey include, “a desirable body,” and “too physically attractive to resist.” To me, these are socially acceptable ways of saying, "good Lord I wanted to see him in all his naked glory, but I'm way too shy to type that into the computer, let alone say I wanted to see his cock." I'm wondering if social norms in terms of what's "appropriate" for a woman to want may have biased their responses to the survey, and therefore the survey's results.

In terms of having sex for non-sexual reasons:

The results contradicted another stereotype about women: their supposed tendency to use sex to gain status or resources.

“Our findings suggest that men do these things more than women,” Dr. Buss said, alluding to the respondents who said they’d had sex to get things, like a promotion, a raise or a favor. Men were much more likely than women to say they’d had sex to “boost my social status” or because the partner was famous or “usually ‘out of my league.’ ”

 

[3113]

She says that women are more likely to have sex due to boredom, pity, anger, or duty than a desire to see some cock, up close and personal. I find that absurd.

Well, sex out of boredom, pity, anger or duty instead of getting to see cock might be absurd, but I can't think of many women who've told me that they had sex to see a cock up-close and personal. And yes, the article IS trying to make you laugh when a woman talks about a made bed with rose petals turning her on; it's part of the joke here that the article knows full well that women are turned on by naked or half-naked men. But that doesn't make the article wrong about male genitalia not turning women on as compared to the complete package.

Guys want to get a girl naked and/or have sex with her. They don't' have sex with her to get her naked as, I assume, having sex tops seeing her naked. So why is it absurd to think that women don't have sex to see a man naked? I've seen plenty of fully dressed men that I wanted to have sex with--and my aim was to have sex with them, not get a look at their penises.

Which isn't to say I won't take a good look if given the chance but the sex isn't a means to that end

 

[Verdad]

We can resolve this pretty easily, I think. Dick av's here on Lit. Dick pics sent to your inbox by horny strangers. How do you like them?

And that's all the article is saying—not that we don't want to see our lovers' cocks or never imagine what's in the pants of someone we're lusting for.

As stated in the article, men who send their bits are likely engaging in a version of the golden rule: They’re turned on by viewing anonymous girl parts, so they figure we’re going to find some random dick a turn on too. We generally don’t.

 

[PennLady]

We can resolve this pretty easily, I think. Dick av's here on Lit. Dick pics sent to your inbox by horny strangers. How do you like them?

And that's all the article is saying—not that we don't want to see our lovers' cocks or never imagine what's in the pants of someone we're lusting for.

As stated in the article, men who send their bits are likely engaging in a version of the golden rule: They’re turned on by viewing anonymous girl parts, so they figure we’re going to find some random dick a turn on too. We generally don’t.

Haha -- I have all the images turned off so I can't say. Kids, you know. And I agree.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

David seems too wholesome to be too arousing.

That means he's seventeen feet of corruptible man flesh. Or, er, marble.

I get that it's humor, but I'm still annoyed that a tangentially related research study was included. To me, the research takes what should have been a giant joke and lends some credibility to the idea that women aren't aroused by focused nakedness.

But eh, it's always been a touchy subject for me, so I'm probably being intentionally obstinate and obtuse.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That means he's seventeen feet of corruptible man flesh. Or, er, marble.

I get that it's humor, but I'm still annoyed that a tangentially related research study was included. To me, the research takes what should have been a giant joke and lends some credibility to the idea that women aren't aroused by focused nakedness.

But eh, it's always been a touchy subject for me, so I'm probably being intentionally obstinate and obtuse.

is what pisses me off as well-- I'm right with you there!

 

[Verdad]

But eh, it's always been a touchy subject for me, so I'm probably being intentionally obstinate and obtuse.

is what pisses me off as well-- I'm right with you there!

I think we all have a knee-jerk for anything that says women don’t, women aren’t, women can’t. We have excellent reasons for it, born of ample experience with surroundings that try to curb our potentials.

However, I’ve developed an equal knee jerk for the kind of ‘equality’ that simply takes men as normative and forces me to model myself on them. My sexuality is not a man’s sexuality. That doesn’t mean it’s ‘softer’, ‘fuzzier’, ‘less’, or anything similar. It does mean it’s different.

Different how? I’m not going to try to explain. I’m not all women and can’t speak for all women.

As far as it makes sense to talk in generalities, though, I don’t feel a slightest need to convince people that women love to stare at genital shots, as if by that I were convincing them of something like “women can be astronauts.”

This is not about an ability or about an accomplishment; it’s about desire, and it’s not a service to women to say they’re being ‘shy’ or something if they don’t conform their modes of desire to men’s.

My two cents.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Females are slaves to their hormones.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My knee jerks when I hear statements like "women can't, don't, won't" and I have an equal disgust for statements like "men can, do, will."
or, vicey versey.
Women have the potential to be attracted to a man for his body, and enjoy sex for pleasure alone.

Men have the potential to communicate complex emotions in complete sentences.

They just need to learn these things are possible, and that they have an ability to think that way. Both sexes seem to like having the excuse that "we just can't do that." The truth is, we just prefer not to make the effort, we'd rather not feel too unique, we prefer not to rock society's boat.

 

[PennLady]

I'd say that again, this is a small sample of women with a very focused question. If I received, unsolicited, a shot of a man's genitals, I'd delete it and move on. It wouldn't do anything for me. This is not to say that said picture wouldn't arouse a different woman. It could also be that the respondents were being flip. Or, they were being honest. We also don't have full explanations. Perhaps the woman who got more excited by the idea of a rose-petal-covered bed was aroused by the idea that her man (or a man) would take the time to do that for her. There are lots of possible explanations here that aren't touched on by the article, as that wasn't the focus.

 

[Athalia]

Oh, I don't know.. It's a very pretty penis. Nice full balls. beautifully crisp hair. I'd like him to spread his legs and give me a view of his perineum...

His head? It's awfully oversized, I don't care for swollen egos.

If I recall my art history accurately, Michelangelo deliberately made his head larger to make him appear more like an adolescent, or even a pre-adolescent, in keeping with the traditional depictions of David. Why he gave him such a helluva physique is something else ...

And 3113 wrote:

I think they mean that women didn't find looking at male genitalia arousing. Men, presumably, will be aroused by a picture of nice, ample, female breasts or female genitalia, who cares without the woman's face or other body parts. The assertion (as I read this) is that women don't find a penis, all by its lonesome, arousing. They want to see the man around it. His abs, his chest, his shoulders, his nice biceps, his smiling face.

I'd agree with that. the penis alone, flaccid or erect, doesn't interest me sexually. What it tells me about the man does interest me sexually, but I need the rest of the man to read the context. Otherwise, it's just anatomy.

 

[stephen55]

His head? It's awfully oversized, I don't care for swollen egos.

As I recall from Sunday School (yes, I did attend) David had an ego the size of Mount Sinai.

But if you look carefully, Michelangelo didn't give David an over sized head. He depicted lots of curly hair but the head is actually in proportion to the body.

What he did give David was an elongated neck.

...interesting...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, if you stand at the foot of the statue and look upwards as you must-- everything looks quite nicely proportioned. You can tell that you're looking up at a person, but everything is visible-- and the head isn't foreshortened into a pinhead, and is in view-- that's why the long neck.