|
Grex > Femme > #101: Are women's bodies more attractive than men's bodies? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
keesan
|
|
Are women's bodies more attractive than men's bodies?
| 
Sep 3 16:44 UTC 1998 |
Jim notes that most art, even advertising art, seems to include the female
more than the male body (especially if nude). Is this because most artiss
are men, or could it be that both men and women prefer or are more interested
in the female body, or find it more attractive than the male body? Women and
men, can you tell him whether you prefer to look at one or the other?
|
| 87 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 1 of 87:
|
Sep 4 00:04 UTC 1998 |
Aesthetically, women seem more attractive -- it's just nicer to look at
curves. Most art that I've seen is definitely geared more towards women as
subjects, but even the more explicitly drawn art that depicts males (I'm
thinking of Japanese comics here) seems to definitely depict them in a
female-like style.
Now, if you're talking what looks best sexually, guys. :-) But -- if you're
talking just as objects of art , then girls.
|
clees
|
|
response 2 of 87:
|
Sep 4 06:25 UTC 1998 |
Bodybuilders are the horror of those can appreciate a well-developed
body, whether it's male or female.
Sexually I am into women, aesthetically both (think of classic
sculpturing).
What I think is most beautiful in women it is the 'wings': the part of
the torse running from the shoulders to the hips, especially
where they go over in the curves of the hips.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 3 of 87:
|
Sep 4 07:01 UTC 1998 |
It has been proven that men are more turned-on by *visual* things
and women respond more to *feelings*, like music, stories, or
touch. So it makes sense that men would buy a car that had a woman
wearing a skimpy red halter dress sitting on the hood, whereas a
woman would buy a car that said soothing things during rush hour
traffic and left a rose for her in the glove compartment. ;-)
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 87:
|
Sep 4 12:28 UTC 1998 |
When I went to pick up my new car, the woman wearing the skimpy
red halter dress was *GONE*!
|
mta
|
|
response 5 of 87:
|
Sep 4 14:25 UTC 1998 |
One theory about why both men and women respond to the female body --
especially the breast, is because both men and women were once infants and
the their mother's body came to symbolize a great deal to them emotionally.
I have no idea how well founded in reality that it -- but I like the sound
of it -- it makes sense to me.
|
i
|
|
response 6 of 87:
|
Sep 4 15:06 UTC 1998 |
Hmmm. Well, if the MGoGo tribe back in the stone age couldn't do much more
than keep it's young women protected, healthy, & well-fed, then the MGoGo's
future was pretty well secured. If the MGoGo couldn't manage that, however,
no other "success" would last very long, because the tribe would die out.
If all the MGoGo felt that women (esp. young & healthy ones) were attractive,
that would encourage them to divert resources in a way that would confer a
survival advantage.....
|
mta
|
|
response 7 of 87:
|
Sep 4 19:53 UTC 1998 |
That's an interesting take...
|
senna
|
|
response 8 of 87:
|
Sep 7 07:21 UTC 1998 |
The female body has a certain amount of appeal to women. It has lots of
appeal to men. The male body doesn't really appeal to hetero men much at all.
I suppose it could be percentages.
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 87:
|
Sep 7 14:15 UTC 1998 |
A number of years ago I read an interview where a famous
director, I think it was either Scorsese or Coppola, was
asked why there were so many more nude females than males
in movies. He responded that the female anatomy was warm and
gentle where the male anatomy was hard and angry.
Angry? Like, certainly he wasn't talking about the penis
here, I hope. I mean, all a woman has to do is look
at it and giggle and it shrinks faster than a salty slug.
And I think that's the heart of it really. Men are
extremely uncomfortable with displaying a flacid penis.
And male directors are empathetic. Angry, yeah, right.
|
mta
|
|
response 10 of 87:
|
Sep 7 15:16 UTC 1998 |
I *like* male bodies. They never struck me as "angry".
|
orinoco
|
|
response 11 of 87:
|
Sep 7 16:08 UTC 1998 |
But I bet it would be hard to show a male body as warm and gentle without
making it seem 'un-masculine', whatever that means, to the guys in the
audience.
|
i
|
|
response 12 of 87:
|
Sep 7 16:33 UTC 1998 |
And the Big, Bad, Machismo God would probably be able to turn out far
more offended followers than female nudity ever turned out amoung the
feminists.
Though I do get the feeling that Hollywood is basically a bunch of males
making movies primarily for males. What sort of stuff a good, mostly-
female movie company could produce for mostly-female audiences would be
interesting to see.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 13 of 87:
|
Sep 7 20:23 UTC 1998 |
I would like to note that I have never laughed at a flaccid
penis...although, "Oh! It's so *cute*!" escaped my mouth when I was
eighteen and drunk. I regret that to this day... =)
I think what he meant by "hard and angry" was that sharp lines and
features are often described as "angry" in the Art World. Plus, a
woman's body has flowing lines and curves as opposed to the male
form being interrupted by that thing just sitting there waiting for
a party. Granted, I LOVE the male body, and I can't emphasize that
enough, but from an art standpoint women are more appealing to the
eye.
This could also be why more women can get away with saying, "God,
she's *beautiful*" since it's more socially acceptable for a woman
to admire a woman's body. I have been known to drool and get
weak-kneed over certain actresses even though I would never make
love to them.
Salty slug...I loved that. =)
|
clees
|
|
response 14 of 87:
|
Sep 8 06:18 UTC 1998 |
I think you got a point, Sarah.
I certainly never heard a man admire another man by saying "God he's
beautiful", unless he was gay.
At best it would be something like "He's handsome."
Most times however, "I don't regard men like that." or "I wouldn't
know."
So, can't men be beautiful then?
The lack of words when it comes to men, seems on the other hand be
vastly compensated by the rich vocabulary that comes to life when a
beautiful woman walks by.
The getting away with it, is entirely rolemodel-based of course.
let's start by giving boys dolls for their birthdays.
One last remark: I also got the idea that the admiration for the female
body comes from the very first stage of life in which a strong bond is
being developed between the mother and child. That's in my view the main
reason why women can get away with admiring other women.
|
valerie
|
|
response 15 of 87:
|
Sep 20 12:35 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 16 of 87:
|
Sep 20 13:36 UTC 1998 |
Believe it or not, there is a rationale for that. The issue
is whether the genitalia are exposed. Full frontal female
nudity (i.e., a woman standing there facing the camera) exposes
very little, and none of the actual equipment. With men, it's
all hanging out there. For a woman to match it, she'd have to
expose not just her clitoris and labia, but her *ovaries*.
Re chick flicks, men have been dragging women to movies like
Die Hard forever. If you don't like 'em, don't go, fer chrissake.
Or at least retaliate by dragging him off to see Beaches.
|
mary
|
|
response 17 of 87:
|
Sep 20 14:16 UTC 1998 |
Er, what the eye sees with either gender is the skin and hair which covers
the plumbing and egg/sperm production equipment. So men are a little
more exposed because the penis isn't hairy. Big deal. That doesn't seem
to be an issue when it comes to male and female breasts.
|
md
|
|
response 18 of 87:
|
Sep 20 14:43 UTC 1998 |
??
|
md
|
|
response 19 of 87:
|
Sep 20 14:45 UTC 1998 |
By which I mean if you really don't see the difference, and you
aren't just bein' ornery, I don't know what to say to you. Btw,
I don't favor any kind of censorship.
|
remmers
|
|
response 20 of 87:
|
Sep 20 16:11 UTC 1998 |
Well, the rationale in #16 doesn't work for breast exposure, for
which the movie rating system (and public "decency" laws in
general) apply different standards for men than for women.
|
md
|
|
response 21 of 87:
|
Sep 21 02:56 UTC 1998 |
I agree. The fact is that for some reason breasts aren't considered
as naughty as the genitalia. *I* think they're every but as
naughty, but that's just me. ;-)
Btw, we saw the movie Wild Things recently. Kevin Bacon has a full
frontal nudity scene (he shows his butt, too). They show Denise
Richards' breasts, but she doesn't have a full-frontal scene, much
less the spread-leg scene that would be comparable (homologous?) to
Bacon's full frontal scene. So, this is an example of "PC" movie
nudity. Should we feel sorry for Kevin Bacon, being forced by the
producers to show his equipment to the world?
|
mta
|
|
response 22 of 87:
|
Sep 21 05:25 UTC 1998 |
Depends on his equipment, I suppose. ;)
|
scg
|
|
response 23 of 87:
|
Sep 21 07:22 UTC 1998 |
What's that movie rated?
I somehow thought I'd seen movies with full frontal male nudity that weren't
rated NC-17, but I'm not sure.
|
md
|
|
response 24 of 87:
|
Sep 21 11:37 UTC 1998 |
Wild Things is rated R. So was Lolita and At Play in the Fields
of the Lord, both of which featured full frontal male nudity.
Maybe therating doesn't have anything to do with it, after all?
|