Straight men like yourself may be able to, but you appear to have a rather specific fetish going on, and straight men like yourself are not the majority in my opinion, or in the opinion of people who sell pictures of naked women to straight men. Most men that I know, and most porn that I find, does not come remotely close to ‘slideshows of nothing but vulvas and vaginas all day long’, there is a lot more T&A in what is viewed than pure V (and a lot of stuff that shows T&A without V), and typically women’s faces figure prominently in the pictures.
The vast, vast majority of porn doesn’t do close-up gyno shots - even if you exclude soft stuff like bikini, lingere, and costume shots, you just don’t see Shagnasty’s fous. I just did a simple google search for ‘naked women’, there were no shots that were just ‘vulvas and vaginas’ on the first page - even the handful of ‘spreadie’ shots included most of the woman’s body and her face in the picture. It’s just not a popular style of image, and it should be if the theory was correct.
The reason I am getting so specific about that is that the OP rests on the idea that straight men like looking directly at vaginas, so gay men would correspondingly look at anuses. But straight men don’t generally do that, so there’s really no reason to expect gay men to focus so narrowly. And they don’t, a google search for ‘gay porn’, for example, finds that all of the images on the first page include faces, generally include most of the body, and don’t even show the alleged focus.
It isn’t quite like that and I didn’t mean to imply that is my preference. I don’t like gyno shots very much myself but, I can see pretty faces, butts, cleavage and legs in any nightclub in the country or even on the female anchors on Fox News. That is certainly nice but it isn’t remarkable.
Boobs and especially crotch shots are completely different. People freak out about them. I know my mind gets turned off and my eyes go on autopilot when I happen upon such a miracle. I am not the only one. That was the whole point of Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Superbowl. It was barely anything but it certainly got attention. A bare crotch shot would have been several times more controversial. The U.S. is a little Puritan when it comes to nudity but the scale is mostly the same around the world.
Well there’s a distinction between arousing and shocking.
Yes seeing a woman’s whatchamacallit is pretty shocking in most situations, yes.
But if you’re implying most guys find the sight of that more arousing than nice legs or boobs, we’d need a cite for that, because actually I’m thinking it’s atypical.
In the OP you mentioned a slideshow of vaginas. I bet you anything that on xvideos there are many more slideshows of boobs, or even just clothed pretty girls, than vagina slideshows (Yes, even though xvideos is a porn site, I think there will be many more non-porn videos of pretty women there than vulva compilations).
this reminds me of the late 90s earlt 00s when the thing was to take a nude pic and blank out the face or just shoot below the neck so you couldn’t identify a person the reaction generally was “nice tits but where’s the rest ?”
even my mom said that with out the face you couldn’t tell if a person was hot or not …
This contradicts your initial claim - if I don’t like something much, I’ll get bored looking at it for a long time, but you said you “can look at slideshows of nothing but vulvas and vaginas all day long and never get bored.” That doesn’t imply that you don’t like them very much, and you went on to argue that, because you can look at them all day, gay guys presumably would look at anuses all day. If you actually don’t like V&V shots very much, then the reasonable conclusion of the analogy is that gay guys wouldn’t like A shots very much either.
People freak out when there’s nudity on a major TV show watched by a bunch of kids that isn’t, by law, supposed to have nudity on it. That doesn’t support the contention that straight men will spend all day looking at close-up shots of vaginas and vulvas without getting bored. It’s the rarity and unexpectedness of the event that shocked people, if the playboy channel ran a special all day marathon of close up vids of ‘vulvas and vaginas’ it wouldn’t be remotely near as big of a deal - and probably would have very few straight men sticking around to watch hours of it, much less the whole thing.
And since a simple google image search can bring up pages and pages of ‘such a miracle’, I am going to take issue with the miraculous nature of smutty pics
