Lonelygirl15

It it a societal reason that men and women approach sex differently or what men find attractive versus what women find attractive? In general?

I'm not saying both sexes can't use pick up lines or open doors for each other. That's not what I meant. I meant that a men seem to have more trouble with sex and attracting women for sex than women do in attracting men for sex.

Even if it is societal causes, it is still a sure difference that affects us. Yes, when it comes to public education, even if it is peer pressure or whatever non-inherited cause, it's still a major issue and the /reality/ still remains that girls seem to do better than boys.

kwicherbichen wrote:It it a societal reason that men and women approach sex differently or what men find attractive versus what women find attractive? In general?

In terms of what they find attractive, it's both societal and an individual-to-individual basis matter.

Heck, in England a few hundred years back, being overweight was considered attractive. That was the socially promoted ideal (for obvious reasons; the concept was related to wealth and social status).

Now the media widely promotes opposite ideals of what should be considered attractive, and many people do take those images to heart. That said, though, it's not the whole story, as individual preferences can emerge regardless (think of all the different fetishes that different people have; as for these and biology, fetishes are typically believed to be related to life experiences and emotional associations).

By the way, while on the subject of biological inheritance versus societal expectations of what is or isn't attractive, consider that in recent times effeminate young males have become a big thing in the east (especially Japan). Consequently, that ideal has spread to many young people in the United States who are influenced by Japanese ideals of what is cool or attractive.

kwicherbichen wrote:I meant that a men seem to have more trouble with sex and attracting women for sex than women do in attracting men for sex.

I'd have to disagree with this. I'm going to go ahead and admit that this will be mostly conjeture on my part, but all other things being equal (and all these variables probably never would be, but I'm just making the argument) - perceptions of morality, commitment concerns, emotional and physical availablity - I see no reason why two people of the opposite sex who are attracted to the opposite sex and who find one another equally attractive should be more or less likely to have a chance of getting into the other's pants.

I think what influences the idea that males have more difficulty is this idea that's regularly promoted of getting a woman (usually one of uncommon - perhaps unrealistic - body type) being a prize. Obviously the female's preferences - and those other variables I mentioned in the paragraph above - are going to play into that, but if she totally digs the guy as much as he does her, if she wants him just as bad, and there's no moral, emotional or physical inhibitors at work, even the knowledge that she's a prize being worked for shouldn't matter.

Again, that's just my guess, but I think it's a reasonable one.

kwicherbichen wrote:Even if it is societal causes, it is still a sure difference that affects us. Yes, when it comes to public education, even if it is peer pressure or whatever non-inherited cause, it's still a major issue and the /reality/ still remains that girls seem to do better than boys.

This is true, yes. For whatever reasons, very real differences that are faced daily can and do emerge, as do the presumptions (accurate or inaccurate) of differences.

so much talk over this... most people saying they need to stop this drinking crap, now i doubt there is anyone who will disagree they NEED to stop bad habits, in reality many to most dont anytime soon... Not saying they need to be plastered, but you can get tipsy without passing out in the sun and having a friend have to pile you up in a car...

But you can drink responsibly too, i dont think drinking alone is getting "old" its the fact they obviously dont know their limits...

With that aside, the end was cute, it brought back a touch of the cute in her room bree, but in a not so sickening childish way like those were done...

So I say bravo, its just a good all around filler video, but that doesnt mean make them lushes 24/7, or make drinking the way to do a filler, and it should be ok id think...

Heck, in England a few hundred years back, being overweight was considered attractive.

Oh my gosh, I hate when people pull this one out of their ass. Except usually, the people who pull this one are the people who insist that people find anorexic models sexually attractive.

By the way, while on the subject of biological inheritance of what is or isn't attractive, consider that in recent times effeminate young males have become a big thing in the east (especially Japan). Consequently, that ideal has spread to many young people in the United States who are influenced by Japanese ideals of what is cool or attractive.

Does this mean FEMALES are finding it sexually attractive or those males find it generally attractive?

I am talking about what attracts someone to want to have sex with a person. SEX.

I see no reason why two people of the opposite sex who are attracted to the opposite sex and who find one another equally attractive should be more or less likely to have a chance of getting into the other's pants.

Right, so what does a man have to do verses what a woman has to do to be attractive...

This is true, yes. For whatever reasons, very real differences that are faced daily can and do emerge, as do the presumptions (accurate or inaccurate) of differences.

So why are you against testing men and women to find causes of differences or to find other differences or correlations?

Lurker wrote:
In terms of what they find attractive, it's both societal and an individual-to-individual basis matter.

Heck, in England a few hundred years back, being overweight was considered attractive. That was the socially promoted ideal (for obvious reasons; the concept was related to wealth and social status).

Okay, this is a total tangent to the video, but I saw this special on PBS or something a few months back (yeah, I'm a dork -- like Bree) Anyway. . . there was this study done -- in Britain, actually, where they tried to figure out what men and women found attractive. Now, with men, the one thing they found that was constant was hip-to-waist ratio. Yup, that's right -- women who look fertile (even if they say they don't want kids)! For women, the consistent factor was height. We tend to go for the tall guys. . . not sure why.

Of course, there's also the sterotype of men wanting to "spread their seed," while women want to "secure protection" from a biological standpoint. I'm not sure if I buy it, though. I've had a tough time finding any legitimate research on this. It seems to me like a convenient presumption to explain away society's double-standards. On the other hand, the human subconscious is interested in pro-creation. That much we know.

I guess the whole gender stereotype thing has been a theme in LG from the beginning . . . and now with Bree talking about this "tend and befriend" study, that makes it even more so. I don't know how much of it is nature and how much is nurture. To what extent is it okay for us to have a gender identity -- and at what point is it restrictive or just plain silly? I dunno . . . too deep for silly girl like me. Think I'll go watch some more PBS.

Gender stereotype in LG15? What do you mean? The boys drinking or what?

And I'm not even sure if I buy the "tend and befriend" thing. I looked for the explanation and it doesn't make any sense to me! Tend means the woman will stand her ground to protect her young but what if a woman doesn't have young to defend?

kwicherbichen wrote:

Heck, in England a few hundred years back, being overweight was considered attractive.

Oh my gosh, I hate when people pull this one out of their ass. Except usually, the people who pull this one are the people who insist that people find anorexic models sexually attractive.

Pulling something out of one's ass implies making it up on the spot.

In any event, my point was that societary standards of beauty have not remained consistent among the descendants of Anglo-Saxons - of which the majority of people currently living in the U.S. are. They've not even remained consistent since the U.S. was colonized for that matter.

kwicherbichen wrote:Does this mean FEMALES are finding it sexually attractive or those males find it generally attractive?

People who are sexually attracted to males ...

kwicherbichen wrote:I am talking about what attracts someone to want to have sex with a person. SEX.

That isn't what we're talking about?

kwicherbichen wrote:Right, so what does a man have to do verses what a woman has to do to be attractive...

Heck if I know. It obviously depends on who you want to be attractive to.

kwicherbichen wrote:So why are you against testing men and women to find causes of differences or to find other differences or correlations?

When have I said that? I never so much as implied it.

We wouldn't even know if there were biological differences without testing. Who would be against that?


In any event, I don't see what more I can really offer you here. I don't have an answer for your most recent question, and I'm not even an authority on those earlier ones. I recommend looking into various research if you're still interested (you seem to be very interested). I do hope I managed to clear something up or spark a (greater) interest at the very least.

garnet wrote:Okay, this is a total tangent to the video, but I saw this special on PBS or something a few months back (yeah, I'm a dork -- like Bree) Anyway. . . there was this study done -- in Britain, actually, where they tried to figure out what men and women found attractive. Now, with men, the one thing they found that was constant was hip-to-waist ratio. Yup, that's right -- women who look fertile (even if they say they don't want kids)! For women, the consistent factor was height. We tend to go for the tall guys. . . not sure why.

Of course, there's also the sterotype of men wanting to "spread their seed," while women want to "secure protection" from a biological standpoint. I'm not sure if I buy it, though. I've had a tough time finding any legitimate research on this. It seems to me like a convenient presumption to explain away society's double-standards. On the other hand, the human subconscious is interested in pro-creation. That much we know.

That's interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. I wonder if they were going for a biological determination or a generalized one. Can you remember? I'd be interested in what kind of methods they may have used in either case, but especially in the former.

Pulling something out of one's ass implies making it up on the spot.

I'm not saying it's made up. I'm saying its a shit response because in my experience it usually comes from a shit argument about models and anorexia and what is found to be sexually attractive because of them.

People who are sexually attracted to males ...

Is that a yes or a no?

That isn't what we're talking about?

That's what I'm talking about, but I can't tell if that's what you're talking about. Just because something is in the media doesn't mean is sexually attractive. You can be attracted to something without associating it with sex or a sexual fantasy.

Heck if I know. It obviously depends on who you want to be attractive to.

I don't believe people are so deviant that you cannot predict a pattern... in fact, people make money from predicting patterns and teaching people how to get more sex.

When have I said that? I never so much as implied it.

You said something about how you wish men and women were the same or something.

kwicherbichen wrote:

Pulling something out of one's ass implies making it up on the spot.

I'm not saying it's made up. I'm saying its a shit response because in my experience it usually comes from a shit argument about models and anorexia and what is found to be sexually attractive because of them.

On its own it might be a shit response, but when being considered as part of trends over large periods of time, I think it can be relevant.

Not sure how you've seen it used in the argument about models and anorexia, though. I don't think I've heard that one.

kwicherbichen wrote:

People who are sexually attracted to males ...

Is that a yes or a no?

Yes, females, but also homosexual males. I'm not really sure what to make of it or what the ratio of females-to-homosexual males is believed to be, but I've not seen a lot of study on it. It's probably out there, though. I've not really gone looking for it.

kwicherbichen wrote:

That isn't what we're talking about?

That's what I'm talking about, but I can't tell if that's what you're talking about. Just because something is in the media doesn't mean is sexually attractive.

Well, the media is where we find our society's expected standards presented, glamorized and reiterated. Would you believe it's gotten to the point that Dove ran this ad campaign a couple of years back, touting that it was using "real women" (which I'm sure a great number of women took as an even bigger blow to their self-esteem; at least the "evolution" video made a good point) as its models?:

http://www.wanderings.net/notebook/Main ... alKnockout

... And there were still people saying that they were too overweight.

kwicherbichen wrote:I don't believe people are so deviant that you cannot predict a pattern... in fact, people make money from predicting patterns and teaching people how to get more sex.

You may be right and I just don't know the answer. That said, though, marketing doesn't always respond to what the public puts forth as its preferences - attempts are definitely made to program them.

kwicherbichen wrote:

When have I said that? I never so much as implied it.

You said something about how you wish men and women were the same or something.

No, no, no. You asked me if I think we should start treating them the same and the only thing I said was that we should probably stop assuming so much what their moral, mental and emotional characteristics are on the basis of their sex. That's all.

Okay. What's trendy and what most people are truly physically attracted to in a mate are two different things. Obviously the info I summarized was on heterosexual attraction for the purpose of dating -- not on what sells magazines, oil paintings, youtube videos, etc. Plus, there are plenty of non-physical qualities which make a person attractive. Anyway . . .

Fight or Flight vs. Tend and Befriend -- The differences in male and female responses begin with puberty -- not pregnancy:

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/mccarthy.html

It seems to be hormone related. They actually did some of the studies on rats as well as ppl., so while the idea of a learned behavior isn't out of the question, the rat thing makes it unlikely.

Gender sterotypes in LG . . . no . . .
I think I'll go put on a pink feather boa, dance around in a dress, and let some guys teach me to SK8 and drive. . . that is if my overprotective dad lets me out of the house. Or wait -- I could slack off, play on the Internet, go sailing, and then sleep on the floor. And if "beast" were Bree's nickname . . . oh, geez --

Don't get me wrong. I like the series. I'm just interested to see where they go with the gender thing.

I did enjoy DB in the boa, though.

Wow guys... this is like on a whole different level then the vid...
Interesting though.

Chelseyrl wrote: Wow guys... this is like on a whole different level then the vid...
Interesting though.

Glad you found it interesting. I really think so too (I guess that might be obvious).

I don't think it's necessarily on a different level than the video, by the way. I feel like the subject brought up in the video directly relates to what's been discussed on essentially the same level, just with divergent ideas.

There was probably more to talk about than this, though. I take the blame if anything was ignored because of this particularly focused discussion.

Lurker wrote:I think what influences the idea that males have more difficulty is this idea that's regularly promoted of getting a woman (usually one of uncommon - perhaps unrealistic - body type) being a prize. Obviously the female's preferences - and those other variables I mentioned in the paragraph above - are going to play into that, but if she totally digs the guy as much as he does her, if she wants him just as bad, and there's no moral, emotional or physical inhibitors at work, even the knowledge that she's a prize being worked for shouldn't matter.

OK, I haven't read everything you all have said; however, I wanted to point out to Lurker that it is not socially acceptable for a woman to pursue sex in a forward fashion. Men are encouraged to "sleep around", while it is not only taboo for a women, but she is consider a 'whore", or a "slut", or, as Voyboy called me in another thread, a "hussy" (Voyboy, you also called Danielle a trollop. Maybe it's time for you to take another look at some of your opinions about sexual roles).

longlostposter wrote:OK, I haven't read everything you all have said; however, I wanted to point out to Lurker that it is not socially acceptable for a woman to pursue sex in a forward fashion. Men are encouraged to "sleep around", while it is not only taboo for a women, but she is consider a 'whore", or a "slut", or, as Voyboy called me in another thread, a "hussy" (Voyboy, you also called Danielle a trollop. Maybe it's time for you to take another look at some of your opinions about sexual roles).

I think that's what I was thinking, but in much different words (it would have probably made a lot more sense when I said it if I'd used your words). Males are definitely encouraged to do as you say, and what I was (probably not very well) trying to get at is that getting in bed with a female thus becomes a prize or conquest. Society largely looks at it as a game with males as the players.

I'm not going to touch the voyboy part of that.

Lurker wrote:I'm not going to touch the voyboy part of that.

Good thinking, Lurker. Although you could have just left it out of the quote without commenting on it.