That settles it, I'm going to find Jerry's link!
Let me amend that a bit -- I don't think it's possible to say that the responses were
exactly the same, as we are talking about apples and oranges after all.
But the researchers expected to find that women were significantly less physiologically aroused by visual stimulation than men, and that was NOT the case.
heeheeheeegigglegiggle.... Diane, if you want more I'll PM you more.
So.... after a couple of hours searching the net for good male nude web-sites designed for women. I found 2 decent ones (well, one was actually geared more for gay men, but it was good for me too) and one histerical self-portrait site.
So. I decided to start taking pix of naked men. Who's up for the task? Anyone?
strictly in a professional manner or experimental method?
That and artistic as well.
I want to see those pics LK, okay! I just want to check them out before you post them, or to edit them!
sure Misti, my new editor!
Vaginas on one topic and Dicks on another!! Everything goes good with Coke!
Did I open a whole new can of worms her with my questions ?
I like nude and semi-nude men. In pictures and otherwise. But the feeling of being held by a man does more for me than pictures do. By leaps and bounds.
About pictures, I think that societally our culture regards the female form to be more beautiful than the male form. We tend only to see nude men in a sexual context, particularly in gay porn. (k, what are your links? I'd love to see them. Er, for research purposes...)
We see nude women in sexual contexts as well as in non-sexual contexts. There is a lot more art out there with nude women as subjects than there is with nude men as subjects. Part of it is that more women than men are willing to be artists' models, and part of it is that many artists just prefer female models.
When I was regularly working as a model, my photographer told me he just found the female form a lot more beautiful than the male form, and that is why he primarily photographed women. Another artist I worked with briefly told me that it was very difficult to find male models, especially for nude work like gesture drawings and figure studies.
Perhaps men don't feel as comfortable exposing their penises in non-sexual contexts. Perhaps men have been conditioned to believe that their bodies are not beautiful enough to warrant showing them, and that is why we have fewer opportunities to see them, creating a vicious cycle.
marycat, I also wonder how many artists have been heterosexual men as opposed to hetero women or gay men. My impression is that there have been disproportionate numbers of men, though the hetero/ gay part is more difficult to figure.
Take Michelangelo, though -- he created beautiful, beautiful men (including that archetype of male beauty, David), but his women were big muscular specimens with some boobs plopped on rather haphazardly.
In my art school days I MUCH preferred drawing male nudes to female ones.
Oookay, 8 more lbs. and maybe I'll pose, but I refuse to excerise...
MaryCat wrote:
Perhaps men don't feel as comfortable exposing their penises in non-sexual contexts. Perhaps men have been conditioned to believe that their bodies are not beautiful enough to warrant showing them, and that is why we have fewer opportunities to see them, creating a vicious cycle.
Your theory makes sense. Men tend not to feel comfortable exposing too much of themselves emotionally, so why wouldn't there be some of that reticence when it comes to exposing themselves physically?
But are women any more "comfortable" exposing themselves physically?
It seems that in everyday terms it is men who are more comfortable with exposing skin -- shirtless men are the obvious example there.
I think it has more to do with a) who is doing the representation (photographic, sculptural, whatever) and b) the market -- who is likely to purchase said representation.
(cav, you posin' for littlek or me?)
Hmm, let's make it a threesome
