I asked my husband if he would enjoy looking at a slideshow of vulvas all day and he looked at me blankly and said " that sounds boring. I’d rather look at the whole package." he’s a straight man, so perhaps one of the underlying assumptions of the OP needs to be re examined ( that straight men would never get bored just looking at pics of female genitalia all day).
A slideshow of parts only would be boring to me, and not very sexy at all.
I don’t think this question has anything to do with “political correctness,” for what it’s worth. Instead of offending anyone I think you’ve got all of the gays & straights scratching their heads and slowly backing away from your slide projector.
Also, put me in the column of “straight lady who likes a good butt butt butt.”
Reducing women to body parts is objectification, so not really a surprise given the OP’s past comments about women.
I’d guess attraction between gays is as varied as it is between heteros.
There’s nothing particularly special about parts in this context.
Looking at slideshows of entire people for the purpose of gratification is also objectification.
I’m not sure there is anything I’d want to look at a slideshow of all day.
'cept maybe puppies.
Yeah, puppies would be OK.
mmm
Objectification of puppies. SAD!
I’ve been looking for a place to post this. FTR I am automatically attracted to fireman carrying puppies.
36-24-36? Only if she’s 5’3".
-1
Just to be clear, I am not talking about gynecology level images. It is simple things like Sharron Stone inadvertently giving a blurry, 2 second upskirt video in the movie Basic Instinct that caused a sensation at the time. Female bottomless images rank much higher on the taboo scale than topless ones and certainly higher than dressed in everything from magazines to strip clubs.
HBO and Showtime made countless crappy after-hours movies in the 80’s and early 90’s whose main purpose was just to show a few seconds of full nudity interwoven into otherwise terrible movies and people still watched them just for that. Playboy didn’t even do bottomless shoots for almost two decades after it started and it wasn’t because people didn’t want to see it. It was just considered too provocative.
I can’t be the only one that such strategies were marketed to. It seems to be a timeless and wide-spread tactic that many people will fall for consistently. My question is whether most gay men would find a short video of a guy bending over in the shower to be the equivalent or is it more complicated than that. I know that people have individual (and often freaky preferences as the rise of specialized web porn has proven) but I am just talking about broad generalities like your most plain vanilla straight guy compared to a gay man.
I don’t know why you are asking about anuses (not asses!) when the clear equivalent would be penises.
The answer to your question is “it’s more complicated than that.”
I’ve found my tastes in objectification, as a straight woman (who has been described as the most bent straight person my gay friends have ever met), align fairly closely with those of gay men, as in solely gratuitous photos and videos of a nice round male bubble butt (in any variation of dress or undress) is very much appreciated. And male butts enclosed in baggy pants that make men look like they’ve got a loaded diaper under those pants, is very much not appreciated.
There is a certain aspect of gay porn that features rectums in various states of expansion and/or prolapse. That is not a popular aspect, but it’s out there.
Thank you. That is part of what I am trying to understand. I know I sound like a imbecile in this thread but it isn’t intentional. It is like asking a colorblind person to write a sonnet celebrating the different shades of green and red. I simply don’t get it but it is a serious question and I figured the SDMB may be able to help but it is also possible that none of us can see anything past our own particular reality.
You bring up an excellent point. Straight men tend to very visually oriented often in specific ways while heterosexual women tend to be more holistic in their attraction. I could rephrase the question to ask whether gay men are closer to the former or the latter. Again, this is about sexual attraction only. We are talking about Tinder and porn level stuff and not the deeper quality of anyone’s character.
It isn’t about who you would marry. It is about simple things that cause powerful attractions.
I will from now on.
Well, sometimes when I lie in bed I do be moaning.
mmm
Ok, when you put it that way… I tend to be much closer to the latter than the former. Very holistic, in that I get turned on by the totality of my husband… simply because it’s HIS body, HIS personality, HIS voice, and not somebody else’s.
That is not to say I can’t appreciate a total stranger’s ass… or cock or balls or chest or eyes or nose or hands or nipples or hair, etc., etc., etc. But watching a slide show of men’s asses would bore the hell out of me.
But don’t take me as typical of most gay men. In most respects, I’m not.
I didn’t expect this thread to turn into a discussion about teleological evolution.
Many posters seem to disagree with the OP’s contention that straight men enjoy looking at women’s genitals. I’ve heard, through second hand sources you understand, that an alarming proportion of the internet was dedicated to serving that very desire.
As for the OP, you would probably get better answers if you asked this in a gay forum. Alternatively, you could perform field research and see what the male gaze in gay porn is like. I think that’s already been done by academics trying to compare it to straight porn. All I remember in that area is that it was also objectifying in similar ways, and often used tropes of patriarchal straight relations (e.g. a strong, older “masculine” man is dominant, a smaller, younger “feminine” man is subservient).
You contradicted yourself. If nothing is designed and evolution is not goal directed then sex can’t have a purpose. This is frustrating and makes discussion difficult, which is why most people use teleological language when discussing evolution, e.g. eyes are for seeing. There are other purposes for sex, like pair-bonding, but I don’t know if you could say they were equally valid, at least from an evolutionary POV. If sex fails then the species goes all female, like rotifers, or more likely for mammals, goes extinct. If pair-bonding fails, then there’s a lot of single mothers.
Charitably, they’ve evolved to fit each other. Anyone who doubts this should look up the subject of sexual conflict or sexual arms races of animal genitals, like how female ducks have maze-like vaginas and male ducks have curved, flexible penises longer than their body. Or cryptic female choice, where females evolve different methods of storing, sorting, and choosing sperm from many partners.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to say anything about the purpose or origin of the clitoris without stirring controversy.
Over the ages, various learned men have claimed to “discover” the clitoris. I recall in one case there was a bit of controversy, with his opponents saying he wasn’t examining women at all but hermaphrodites with tiny penises. Their poor wives…
A common saying with horrifying visuals.
Lots of straight men enjoy looking at pictures of naked women. That’s not quite the same thing as “lots of straight men enjoy looking at pictures of female genitals.”
Gynecologists don’t find female genitalia arousing in that context - or they shouldn’t, anyway. My family practice doctor, a very handsome straight man, said while examining me, “People have no idea how many times a day we have to do this.”
Like, for instance My Pet Goatse? (NSFW, if you don’t know)